Influence Strategies Senior Pros Prefer to Use
One of the best ways to learn how to effectively provide ethics counsel is to talk to those who have actually done so, and learn from their successes and mistakes. With that goal in mind, in-depth interviews were conducted with 34 members of the PRSA College of Fellows, 21 members of the Arthur W. Page Society, and members of the PRSA College of Fellows and the Southern Public Relations Federation (SPRF) were invited to participate in an online survey. Using the influence tactics framework developed by Berger and Reber (2006), interviewees and survey participants were asked which of the Alpha/Sanctioned tactics and Omega/Unsanctioned tactics they had employed.1 Some of the most common Alpha tactics include rational approaches such as using research and case studies, recruiting allies and forming coalitions, exerting pressure by being persistent and assertive, and employing emotional and legitimacy appeals (Berger and Reber 2006). Omega tactics involve leaking information to external stakeholders, planting rumors, sabotaging implementation of a decision, and serving as a whistleblower (Berger and Reber 2006). During the in-depth interviews, some senior executives discussed additional tactics they used, such as asking probing questions, presenting alternative solutions or creating various scenarios for their bosses to consider, and applying the “headline test,” which involves having senior leaders consider potential media coverage of their decision. The choice of influence tactics varies by both experience and gender.
Comparing the survey results from the PRSA College of Fellows and the general membership of SPRF (see Appendix A), the average age of the respondent sample was 51, with participants ranging in age from 20 to 79. The average years of experience in public relations for the SPRF sample were 16 years and 37 years for the College of Fellows. When asked about the influence strategies and tactics the professionals actually used, the top choice for the combined sample was apparent with almost 81 percent of the professionals choosing the tactic of asking questions, listening and engaging in dialogue. One male PRSA Fellow had used this approach successfully:
It’s engaging in dialogue…you have to start by asking the person… first, what do you think? Or where do you want to go? Where do you want to be or what is it that is bothering you? So if you get a baseline and then you understand the differences between yourself and that person or management…and you know what you have to bridge. So it gives you…a work plan as to how to get to a successful point.
Almost three-fourths of the respondents (72%) chose a direct approach as their second choice. A male PRSA Fellow described the direct approach this way: “Not looking the other way, challenging people. Suggesting that maybe something that they were thinking about doing might be unethical.” He later added, “I mean basically if I thought it was wrong I’d go to the CEO and tell them it is wrong. I don’t need supporters.” The senior executives interviewed appeared to choose a direct approach when they found a request to be highly objectionable. One male PRSA Fellow recalled an offer by a lobbyist to blackmail a politician:
There was a lobbying firm involved that was hired locally, and we met in Washington with our corporate lobbying firm. And the local lobbying firm had put a brown envelope on the table, and said, “Well, if things get really tough, we have some not so nice information on this local official”…And I said, “No…you can take that off the table. We’re not going to even open that and go there.”
A female PRSA Fellow remembered the time she had to take strong stance with an influential donor who wanted to threaten a media organization if it did not agree to sponsor a nonprofit fundraiser:
I just looked at the guy and I said, “You know here’s the deal. If you want to call the TV station and do that, I think that’s totally up to you. I think it’s unethical…And no, I will not call the TV station and tell them…this donor’s going to yank all this advertising from you unless you do this. That’s called blackmail and coercion and that’s illegal, and I’m not going to do it. So if that’s a decision you want to make, feel free to make that decision and… my involvement here is complete…no, I will not compromise my integrity and character”…So I got up and left the meeting.
Contrasting responses between PRSA Fellows and SPRF general membership, differences were found in the selection of top influence strategies. Overwhelmingly, the majority of PRSA Fellows (91%) selected the tactic of asking questions, listening and engaging in dialogue as their top tactic, and the majority of SPRF members (72%) selected it as their top tactic as well. PRSA Fellows (85%) chose legitimacy appeals as their second go-to influence strategy, 82 percent preferred personal experiences next, and 79 percent equally supported the strategies of raising the concerns of stakeholders and the direct approach (see Table 4.1). The second choice for SPRF members was a direct approach (67%), followed by use of scenarios/alternatives/solutions (62%), raising the concerns of stakeholders (56%), and legitimacy appeals and personal experiences (each 51%).
Table 4.1 Ranking of top influence strategies
Strategies |
College of Fellows |
SPRF |
Asking questions/listening/dialogue |
1 |
1 |
Legitimacy appeals |
2 |
5/6 (tie) |
Personal experiences |
3 |
5/6 (tie) |
Direct approach |
4/5 (tie) |
2 |
Raise concerns of stakeholders |
4/5 (tie) |
4 |
Use of scenarios/alternatives/solutions |
6 |
3 |
Based on the in-depth interviews, the most common influence strategies preferred by members of the Page Society were personal experiences and legitimacy appeals, followed by allies and case studies (see Appendix D). The PRSA Fellows listed case studies first, followed by legitimacy appeals, allies, and research (see Appendix C). One of the key differences appears to be the priority placed on research. Some Page Society members said they were less likely to use research based on timing and lack of funding; however, other Page Society members were able to describe specific times when research played a central role in their counsel. As one Page Society member explained:
I went from an organization where we spent no money on research—it costs money sometimes, generally, to the point that I get people to buy into it that can immediately spend 2% of what this program is costing to do research to prove its effectiveness. I like to do that research in advance of it, not after, to see whether or not it worked. I want to make sure that what we’re planning works...And you need a couple of wins in that space, and not costing too much money and you win people over.
Both groups, the PRSA Fellows and Page Society, have extensive experience in public relations and can easily draw upon their personal experiences when providing ethics counsel. One Page Society member said she uses storytelling as a means of sharing personal experiences:
I always like to say, “Well, in my experience, let me tell you a story about this, and you would think this wouldn’t be a big deal, but let me tell you how it escalated, and what we had to do to correct it.” So yeah, whenever possible personal stories are hugely impactful when it comes to persuasion.
In previous studies, scholars found that rational persuasion (e.g., use of data, case studies, and laws) was the most common influence technique public relations professionals reported using, followed by coalition-building, then using pressure or assertiveness (Berger and Reber 2006; O’Neil 2003). Rational persuasion would be consistent with legitimacy appeals, which was the second most common influence tactic used by PRSA Fellows and was among the two top tactics preferred by Page Society members. Legitimacy appeals are arguments based on what is legal or ethical, and can involve calling attention to the organization’s core values. Berger and Reber (2006) labeled these approaches as structural resources, pointing out that they can be drawn from an organization’s policies and procedures. A female PRSA Fellow said structural resources were part of her ethical toolkit:
I’ve also used mission, vision, those points in discussions where I’ll say…well, Ok, if we do x, y, z, I don’t think that’s in keeping with our mission, vision, values. I think that those…statements that a company has already adopted can be extremely effective and oftentimes more effective than saying, “I just don’t think that’s ethical.” If you can say that our value is to always be transparent and does this really meet those values, I think it’s an even stronger statement…because you’re tying it back to something that a company has already decided they believe in.
A member of the Page Society said his approach involved posing a simple question due to their strong ethical culture when faced with a potential security breach:
I was new enough to ask this sort of dumb/bold question— what would our founder do? And I work for a company where our founder is still active in the business. And then I said, “Well, what would he do?” And both the head of sales and the head of the enterprise looked at me and said, “Yeah, you’re right.” And we made the decision in about 10 seconds. And we went on and we notified all those people [customers].
Another female PRSA Fellow remembered using a legitimacy appeal during an internal debate following a traffic accident involving a contractor the company had hired that resulted in the death of a youth. She advocated for the company to offer condolences to the grieving family:
I had a conversation about it and the other execs about what our roles should be in reaching out to the family of the dead man, and most advised against it. In fact, every executive advised against it. I had a private conversation with our president and said, “You know this is a tough issue, and there’s no right answer here. Here are the pros and cons of calling this grieving mother and your legal counsel doesn’t think it’s a good idea, but that’s not who you are. You care about people and our company cares about people and it seemed consistent with who you and the way that we define ourselves as a company that we would acknowledge this woman’s grief.” And so it was a very difficult call. He didn’t have a lot of support. And in the end, he decided that yes that his instinct that his belief as a human being and a leader of the company that obviously had some connection to the event that he would call and talk to this mother.
Based on the depth of their experience, it is no surprise that the PRSA Fellows were more likely than the general membership of SPRF, a regional professional association, to draw upon their personal experiences when providing ethics counsel. Experience has been classified as an individual resource, based on skills and personal characteristics such as intelligence, integrity, and vision (Berger and Reber 2006). Other examples of individual influence resources include expertise, performance, and knowledge of the organization. A male PRSA Fellow found his personal experiences as invaluable:
In terms of personal experience, I think you after being in the business for so many years, it’s sort of like Malcolm Gladwell’s theory of 10,000 experiences and pretty soon you do all of your own sets of case studies and personal research.
That is exactly what one Page Society member said he did was to create his own library of case studies:
I would go out in search of case studies wherever I could. And I often wrote them, meaning I wrote about a company having an experience so...you write a concise...here’s the issue they faced that’s similar to ours. Here’s how they addressed it, and here’s what they would have done differently. And the great thing about corporations and the agency people I’ve worked with, they’re very sharing and open. They don’t necessarily want these things published. But they’re willing to share personal experiences including failures.
As expected, Omega/Unsanctioned tactics, such as leaking information externally or serving as a whistleblower, were less likely to be used by the PRSA Fellows or SPRF members. A few instances, however, were reported during in-depth interviews and those accounts will be discussed in Chapter 6.
Gender Differences Regarding Influence Strategies
Gender differences also were examined in choice of influence strategies reported by PRSA Fellows and Page Society members during the in-depth interviews (see Appendix B). Analysis found men preferred to use (1) case studies, (2) legitimacy appeals, (3/4) allies and personal experiences (5) research, and (6) pressure (see Table 4.2). The women equally preferred (1/2/3) legitimacy appeals, allies and pressure, followed by (4) personal experiences, and (5/6) case studies and research.
Table 4.2 Ranking of influence tactics by gender
Influence tactic |
Men |
Women |
Case studies |
1 |
5/6 (tie) |
Legitimacy appeals |
2 |
1/2/3 (tie) |
Allies |
¾ (tie) |
1/2/3 (tie) |
Personal experiences |
¾ (tie) |
4 |
Research |
5 |
5/6 (tie) |
Pressure |
6 |
1/2/3 (tie) |
One male PRSA Fellow provided his own description of these various approaches:
If you can bring some sort of personal perspective to it that helps, but barring that I think it helps clients hear other companies have faced the same circumstance or dealt with the same ethical issue, and…this is how they handled it and this is how they dealt with it. This is what we recommended they do and they came through the other side Ok. So I’d say anytime there’s a personal experience that you can add to that the better, but I would say…case studies are probably the most effective with clients that I work with and then if there’s skepticism, then research certainly helps maybe seal the deal or give them further comfort that Ok this is…what’s happening throughout the industry.
Research and case studies would be examples of informational resources (Berger and Reber 2006). A female PRSA Fellow described exactly how to use case studies in a less confrontational manner:
And I think case studies provide a way for you to say, “Hey, I have a concern about this and I started looking into it. And this company I think maybe it was doing something similar.” And almost asking the other person to read the case study and then to tell me how they feel. Because I think that a lot of times you can talk, talk, talk, talk, but if you can show and then wait and then listen, the other person or the other party will see what it is that you’re going for and then it’s their own idea to change to a more ethical tactic rather than you having to push it on them.
Women senior executives tend to use different influence strategies than men, specifically allies and pressure. One reason women might be more likely to recruit allies is they tend to be outnumbered by men in the boardroom, as reported by one female PRSA Fellow working in education, “I’m the person who came up where I would be the only woman on the leadership team.” A member of the Page Society shared a similar experience and described how challenging that can be:
Often I’m the only woman in the room, and…it’s high stakes and high pressure, and so a lot of times the men will scream, yell, curse, pace. And to have your voice heard, a lot of times, I will stand up and walk like kind of in front of the room. I just say listen, and so I will have to definitely be more assertive than I typically would be to get attention and get people to focus… But it’s usually in a pretty calm demeanor, but a pretty assertive demeanor as well…“Listen, other companies have faced this in the past. It’s not the end of the world. Here’s what I recommend.” And it usually can get people…to refocus.
Allies and coalitions are examples of what Berger and Reber (2006) called relational influence resources, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. It is important to note that many of the women interviewed said they used pressure in connection with allies or other coalition members, so the two techniques, while separate tactics, tend to be related. A female PRSA Fellow said there is strength in numbers:
I think when you have more than one person saying the same thing it’s helpful. So it wasn’t like I really had to really recruit them. I just had to make them aware of what was happening. And so I think going in force can help your case. Sometimes it can backfire…you know if somebody wants to kill the messenger. But most of the time if you hear something from one person, you’d [think] like yeah, that might be true, but if several people come to you with the same messaging, I think you take notice.
Another female PRSA Fellow described a situation involving a controversial recommendation from engineers unfamiliar with the local community as an example of allies effectively applying pressure:
When they presented it to us, we all said, “This cannot happen. You will decimate a culture if you do this”…And that was very emotional for us, because these were people that we knew. These were people that we had been in their homes. We had had meals with their families. We had talked with them about being a very responsible developer and being honest…We will not do this moving forward.
An additional insight was discovered from observing the specific language men and women used to describe their influence strategies and tactics in practice. Previous researchers found men were more likely to attempt to influence senior management through direct approaches such as “confront, combat, challenge or oppose” while women used terms such as “express, discussion, voice concerns” to describe their attempts to influence supervisors (Aldoory et al. 2008). In this study, the male senior executives interviewed used descriptions such as ask questions, discuss or listen; present, share alternatives and solutions; or recommend and counsel. A few men also used more confrontational descriptions, such as “we’re not going to do that,” “that’s not how we operate,” “pushed hard,” “firm not wavering,” and “tell them it’s wrong.” Women senior executives tended to describe their attempts in less confrontational terms such as discuss/listen/dialogue; and recommended, suggested, counseled, and advised. However, a few of the women used more direct approaches such as coming “down fairly hard” on a position, making it very clear, being straightforward, being forceful, “we absolutely put our foot down,” or urging clients to “tell me the truth now.” Again, some of those more confrontational approaches discussed by women were in the context of joint efforts with allies or coalition members. Specific examples regarding how to recruit allies and coalition members are discussed in Chapter 5.
Other Approaches to Ethics Counsel
When confrontation or pressure has not been effective or needs to be avoided, public relations executives can be quite resourceful when identifying ways to approach more senior executives. One method mentioned is the so-called “headline test” (Neill and Drumwright 2012), which asks senior executives to consider the potential media consequences of their decisions. An Australian female public relations executive cited in a previous study described the technique:
It’s like what do you want the story to be? What’s the good story that you can imagine and the bad story you can imagine. I don’t have to explain it there for them now. They can sit there and think about it. It could go this way. Is that the headline? (Neill and Drumwright 2012, p. 227)
A related approach, which a female PRSA Fellow found effective, involved having senior leaders consider potential consequences through the use of scenarios and risk assessment:
It’s important to present a number of scenarios, and show the level of risks associated with which one rather than come and say, “This is wrong; we’ve got to do it this way.” Rather than just a one option approach, say here’s option A, here’s option B, and here’s option C, and here are the risks associated with each one. And you know option C is going to be your most ethical approach, fewer legal risks, etc. And I think by painting that picture of I would say the spectrum of risks, you’re not telling the CEO or the C-Suite what to do, but you’re letting them understand the risks and providing recommendations. But it’s ultimately their decision.
A male public relations executive working in education shared another example of providing alternatives:
I was given basically a script for a speech the superintendent was going to read related to the action we were taking, and I felt like the action we were taking was purely politically driven by forces in the community and wasn’t really necessarily the will of our people or the right thing to do in the situation we were in and so I… did my speech writing job on the one I was given, but also wrote a second version that I felt like was more what we should do and turned those back in and said please take a look at the second version, and the second version is what was done and that was after no other leadership discussion beyond just me offering that and then that’s what was done. (Neill and Drumwright 2012)
Another common approach used by public relations executives is raising an ethical concern from the perspective of key stakeholders. A male PRSA Fellow described the appeal he used based on the concerns of local community members.
And the neighborhood was low socioeconomic, and…they were already extremely upset by changes the company had made, which were very courteous, but not delivered in a kind way. It’s kind of like take it or leave it. And we had to explain to them this is how these people feel. It’s not that you were wrong. You did the right things. But it’s the way it was delivered…And once we explained that to this vice president, he said, “Oh my gosh, I didn’t think of it that way.”…When the whole thing was said and done…the group threw a thank you party for the company. It was a community block party.
Raising concerns from the perspective of stakeholders can involve assuming the role of devil’s advocate or loyal opposition. Shahinpoor and Matt (2007) pointed out that the person taking on this role does not have to disclose his or her personal views, and does not necessarily have to agree with the views of these stakeholders. A male public relations professional working in education used this tactic when dealing with a potential breach in computer security:
I think looking at it from the student [perspective] and the repercussions of that decision, looking at it from the parents and trying to anticipate questions or concerns that parents would have and making sure that we were being informative and fully disclosing what we should to parents as well. And so I think a lot of it has to do with examining the decision from the context of the individuals that will be affected by that decision. Again, it’s knowing your audience and it’s understanding what their needs, what their expectations are going to be. (Neill and Drumwright 2012)
No one approach is perfect for every scenario, and public relations executives choose the method that fits their personality style and the specific circumstances. One female PRSA Fellow said it also was important to know your audience:
I could use a chapter from a book with an HR business partner, because I knew she was a little more academic and intellectual, and she would see the picture that I was seeing. Case studies have been helpful in again situations like I was describing when I was kind of dividing and conquering another higher level of leadership was what helped me to convince the woman who headed up a global organization. I shared case studies/articles that talked about communicating effectiveness and again, the research in terms of employees. …I think for me, it’s been knowing who is that I’m trying to influence, what’s going to resonate with them, and what’s not going to resonate with them.
One Page Society member said he draws from his personal faith when counseling others:
Most of the time, I’m trying to work Biblical principles into what I’m actually doing, and…so many times, where I’ll go is Biblical principles minus the chapter and verse, because in many cases, in most cases, I’ve found that works really well, because…it underpins the legal system, because it underpins so many other systems within our culture, that’s always been incredibly helpful. And yeah, it’s literally a matter of kind of stripping out the chapter and verse.
As an example of this approach, he added: “Vision being the easiest— without a vision the people perish.”
Approaches to Avoid
Knowing what not to do can often be as important as knowing what works. While the senior executives discussed their preferred approaches, they also provided advice regarding how not to confront senior executives. A male senior executive working in education provided this advice regarding confronting a CEO: “You don’t want to tell them they’re wrong. You want to give them the advice in a way that they can handle it…So you have to sort of nuance it.” (Neill and Drumwright 2012)
A female PRSA Fellow offered this warning drawn from an experience confronting her boss in a direct manner:
Being very direct with someone, and they took that as an affront, and took it negatively. Which I was shocked about, because I had always been able to be very forthright and honest in my counsel…I was reprimanded for being so forthright. So, I didn’t do it that way anymore.
Several other female executives, including this PRSA Fellow, were wary of, and often avoided, using emotional appeals. As one female PRSA Fellow said:
I try to avoid emotional appeals. Primarily because of sensitivity to being a woman in a leadership position and the stigma about women being emotional in the workplace, and I probably erred in the other direction, but I never wanted to appear emotional about a discussion or base it on feelings.
Another mistake a male public relations executive said he made was issuing an ultimatum when he happened to walk in on an office affair:
And I said, “You know, you’re risking the reputation of all of us with this behavior, and if you don’t tell our boss, I’m going to tell our boss.” I drew that line in the sand and I regret it. …I started with an ultimatum instead of ended with an ultimatum. (Neill and Drumwright 2012)
Timing also can be a crucial factor when confronting a senior executive as this professional advised:
I think playing real close attention to their body language as you’re speaking with them. If you sort of get the feeling that they want you to leave the room, I would buy some time. I would say, could we meet later in the day about this? I’d really like to talk to you about it. Maybe get a meeting later in the day. And then go back and spend some time thinking about and maybe even getting outside counsel about this issue, how we might approach it. He’s not seeing the danger in the same way that I’m seeing it, so how can I get his attention? (Neill and Drumwright 2012)
A PRSA Fellow agreed that any confrontation is all about timing and the proper setting. She offered these words of caution:
You learn there are ways to push back. You might not want to confront a senior executive when he’s surrounded by a bunch of his peers. But just circle back after the meeting or go see him before the meeting to say, “I’m going to raise this. Will you help me or will you chime in or I want you to be aware of it.” So you don’t put yourself in a confrontation where the guy’s got to save face by firing you.
Likewise, she added it is not a good idea to confront a senior executive in a group e-mail, describing how a junior employee was almost fired for doing so.
I had a gal who pushed back on a top executive of the company that bought us. And he wanted to get her fired immediately. “Who is this person?” And I had to go say, no, no that’s one of my best people. And he was like…how dare her.
The Choice to Remain Silent
Results from the PRSA Fellows and SPRF survey revealed that almost 24 percent of the public relations executives had chosen to remain silent when faced with an ethical dilemma. When asked why they chose not to speak up, five reported fear of losing a job, five selected not enough evidence, two indicated it would not have made a difference, and two attributed their decision to not being a member of the decision-making team. The interviews provided additional insights regarding the decision to remain silent. One PRSA Fellow blamed it on inexperience and youth, “I was stunned and frozen, not having a clue what to do and what to say and feeling very young in the profession.” Another PRSA Fellow regrets the early-career decision even now:
I was young and I thought I could trust my leaders. And so when they said, “We’re doing great. You know we’re not going to go through bankruptcy. We’re going to be fine.” And so I believed them. Looking back on it afterwards I thought they just lied. They just lied. And the writing was on the wall and I was so Polly-Ann-ish, so naïve, which is one reason they may have kept me and let others go. But I just—I trusted them so much that it was probably a failure in my maturity, my professional maturity at the time. I won’t ever make that mistake again. One thing I did learn is that when your executives stop listening to your counsel, it’s time to go.
Summary
Some senior public relations executives have mastered the art of raising ethical concerns to senior leaders in a nonconfrontational manner. One of the most common approaches involves simply asking probing questions and listening to understand the reasoning behind the decision, which also helps these executives develop counterarguments. Other approaches include using research, case studies, and legitimacy appeals, often tied to the organization’s core values. Specific tactics include using the “headline test,” providing alternatives, and raising the issue from the perspective of key stakeholders. The senior executives also warned that often, certain tactics such as issuing an ultimatum, confronting a boss in front of others, or attacking someone in a group e-mail could cause irreparable damage.
Questions to Ponder
1. Which of the influence strategies or tactics would you feel most comfortable using and why?
2. Why do you think men and women sometimes tended to use different influence strategies?
3. Why do you think the use of influence tactics varied by years of experience?
1 Alpha tactics are those that are socially accepted and widely used. Omega tactics tend to be used as a last resort when Alpha tactics are not successful in achieving desired results.