II. A HISTORY OF PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Studying Power and Influence in Organizations

Following the events of World War II, there was a growing distaste for authoritarian
organizations and management systems. Young organization and management
development teachers and consultants were swept up in the participative management
movement through involvement with the National Training Laboratories (NTL), with
various graduate schools of management, and with clients. Berlew and his colleagues
found themselves in the midst of the excitement while at the schools of management at
Yale and M.I.T. Like many others, they embraced the democratic values that, even
more than considerations of efficiency and effectiveness, made participation and
involvement the “one best way to manage” for almost two decades following World
War II.

In the 1950s and 1960s, these scholars and consultants conscientiously applied
participative principles in their management and consulting assignments. They found
that, in many situations, participation was a powerful key to improved effectiveness
and morale, but in other situations it was not. They learned that while involvement is a
powerful management and influence strategy, it is only effective in certain types of
situations.

By the late 1960s, these students of management philosophy and behavior had begun to explore the situational variables that seemed to determine whether participative
management would or would not be effective. Roger Harrison took the issue one
important step further. He focused on how people in organizations might generate
their willing participation through “self-directed” behavior and values, rather than
waiting for permission from managers to become involved. His efforts turned into a
lifelong dedication to exploring how people bring inner directedness and personal
integration to their work and personal lives (Harrison, in press). Harrison’s work on
self-directed behavior attracted Berlew and others to its vision of people consciously
choosing and creating environments for themselves that would help them be more
effective.

In the early 1970s, Berlew and Harrison merged their efforts to study intensively the
different ways that individuals influence others in face-to-face situations, especially
when they lack formal or positional authority. Initially, their primary motivation was
self-improvement: they wanted to broaden their own range of influence skills so that
they could be better influencers and more personally powerful. This preoccupation
with personal power and influence gradually evolved into an “educational event” that
they conducted for friends and colleagues who shared their interests. This event was
the first hint of what the Positive Power and Influence Program was to become.

As we noted earlier, Berlew had already concluded that the McBer approach to training
“achievement” was inappropriate for individual behavioral training. Research
suggested that most managers are continually in situations where influencing other people is the only way they can really be successful and achieve satisfaction—whether they are motivated by Achievement, Power, Affiliation, prestige, or status. And if most
managers and staff people in organizations are continually in an environment that
arouses the Power motive, then all a training program needs to do is teach them how to
use it effectively, to exert influence in a positive way.

In 1973, Rank Xerox in the United Kingdom saw a connection between the work of
Berlew and Harrison and its own efforts to improve the functioning of its project
groups. The company retained the team to help train project managers to influence
without formal authority. This confirmed the two consultants’ growing conviction that
their interest in influence involved more than just a personal agenda. Rank Xerox,
British Petroleum, The Irish Management Institute, and other organizations seemed
willing to experiment with a type of training that—at the time—was considered quite
radical. With their support, a training program began to evolve.

Berlew and Harrison chose to call this workshop the Positive Power and Influence
Program, despite the fact that many individuals and organizations objected to the
negative connotations of the word “power.” Berlew argued that power is part of life in
any organization, and should be taken out of the closet and scrutinized by anyone who
uses it or is subject to it. Since people are constantly making decisions about how to use or react to power, why not “shine a light on it” and make thoughtful decisions? Berlew believed then, as those who followed him still do, that power is morally neutral: it can be used either positively to strengthen others or negatively to render them powerless. But despite the consultants’ arguments, most of their early clients dropped the word “power” from the workshop’s title, or replaced it with the safer term “leadership,” when they offered it inside their organizations. Some organizations maintain this practice today while still supporting and using the PPIP.

The development of the PPIP soon began to generate interest and excitement in the
broader world of management consulting. Early in the 1970s, its unique approach to
training attracted Earl Rose, who had spent many years inside organizations and was
then at Synectics. Rose had been working extensively with small groups, studying how
skilled facilitators helped these groups become more effective at creative problem
solving and interpersonal influencing. He recognized that these same tasks were
necessary in one-on-one situations as well, although without the presence of a trained
facilitator to support the process. How did individuals, on their own, sustain creative
and effective problem solving and apply productive influence skills? It was this
challenge that brought Rose together with Berlew and Harrison, and he contributed
extensively to the development of techniques for the PPIP training classroom.

PPIP: The First Edition (1978)

In 1976, Berlew left McBer, eventually joining Roger Harrison and Earl Rose to found
Situation Management Systems (SMS). As a company, SMS enabled this new
partnership to develop, publish, and distribute educational programs for industry,
commerce, and government.

Berlew and his new colleagues concluded that they did not have to worry about intrinsic power motivation, since there would always be more than enough issues to
stimulate people to try to influence others. So, the PPIP turned back towards
behaviorism as a way to explore group and interpersonal process. To this day, as a
training program the PPIP deals almost exclusively with observable behaviors.

SMS began its existence as a training organization holding certain core beliefs, beliefs
that have continued to characterize our work over the two decades that followed:

• Organizational effectiveness begins with personal effectiveness.
• Educated analysis of a situation enables effective action.
• Different situations require different approaches.
• Personal effectiveness is enhanced by behavioral flexibility.
• Effective interpersonal skills can be learned.

The new company launched its efforts with the Positive Power and Influence Program as
its first “product.” The PPIP was marketed as an intervention designed to improve
participants’ abilities to exercise positive influence with or without positional or
hierarchical power. Prior to 1976, the Program was conducted only by the authors and
a few training consultants who worked closely with them as friends and colleagues:
Hans Zuidema of Bureau Zuidema (the Netherlands), Hans Harboe of AKTI
(Denmark), Mike Minty of Rank Xerox (United Kingdom), LeRoy Malouf of LMA, Inc.
(U.S.A.), Diana Harrison (U.S.A.), and Cliff Bolster (U.S.A.), an independent consultant
still actively associated with their work.

In 1978, SMS published a Participant Manual (First Edition) and Trainer Manual, and
set up a formal trainer certification process. Earl Rose took the lead in developing the
certification process, which helped accomplish our goal of training other people to
conduct the program while maintaining a high degree of consistency and quality.
David Berlew and Roger Harrison were the primary authors of this first edition.

Not long after the PPIP was formally introduced to the marketplace, clients began
expressing an interest in how influence training could help them in certain applied
environments. SMS responded by developing two new programs that explored how
influence behaviors supported productive negotiating behavior (the Positive Negotiation
Program) and effective long-cycle selling behavior (the Situational Selling Program). As
with the PPIP, these training programs continue to evolve and contribute to an
understanding of how effective influence emerges in organizations.

Educational Methodologies

There are five streams, or movements, in educational methodology and technology that
contributed to the design of the First Edition of the PPIP, and whose impact is still
extensive in succeeding versions of the program.

Personality Assessment. The quantitative study of personality traits became popular
and widespread in academic psychology and in the American armed forces during
World War II. Its initial success in identifying specific personnel as (among other
things) potential officer candidates, spurred further development in the armed services.

Eventually, a standardized psychological test battery emerged, as well as new
assessment centers that coded and sorted large amounts of personality data and
computed norms for the larger population. Collecting assessment data by observing
and coding people’s actions in small group environments extended this technology
from personality traits to behavior.

The PPIP is not interested in exploring personality characteristics or in comparing an
individual against a norm. In the PPIP, people observe actual behavior and then code
what they see using a process similar to the Bales method. This is accomplished by
means of an instrument (the Influence Style Questionnaire, or ISQ; see the discussion
below) and by reviewing videotapes of group exercises. Both the ISQ and our group
coding activities, therefore, are descendants of the assessment tradition in psychology.

Group Laboratory Approach. Other features of the PPIP are taken from the approach developed at the National Training Laboratory (NTL) in the 1940s and ’50s, and the sensitivity training movement that followed in the 1960s. This era saw the beginning of the “group laboratory” method, where people joined small groups in order to studyand understand their own behavior as well as group dynamics. The adaptation of the “laboratory” method to educational technology eventually became known as the
“experiential learning” approach.

Experiential Learning and Adult Education. The experiential learning circle, or cycle, now strongly associated with David Kolb’s research, forms the basis for the educational methodology used in the PPIP. The roots of experiential learning emerge not only from the NTL tradition but from a third stream of influence: adult education. One major contributor to this field is Malcolm Knowles. Based on the work of Knowles and others, SMS designed the PPIP to ensure that participants’, rather than instructors’, goals should be the focus of the adult educational process. The adult learning tradition, as embodied in the PPIP, also emphasizes that participants should be given “maximum
feasible choice” to work on their own goals in ways they believe are most suitable for
them. Adult educational philosophy emphasizes turning over the responsibility for
learning to the participant, so that the instructor or leader becomes more of a facilitator
and coordinator.

Modeling and Behavior Training. A fourth stream contributing to the design and
philosophy of the PPIP is behavior modeling. Originating in “behavior modification”
approaches to therapy, the power of modeling as an educational technology stems from
research by Bandura and others on how adult models affect children’s behavior. The
behavior modification approach emphasizes the systematic and direct rewarding of
desired behaviors. But the modeling research, now known as “social learning theory,”
indicated how a significant person’s behavior can serve as a powerful model for others
without systematic or direct reinforcement. In many studies, the reinforcing effect of a
behavioral “model” occurred even when the behavior was observed vicariously.

Behavior modification is a frequently used design component of many training
programs because it is so effective in changing behavior. However, its use creates
important value issues for some participants who perceive it as somewhat
manipulative, particularly if it is poorly designed and employs positional power. As a training technology, behavior modeling is frequently more effective than pure behavior
modification. A training program like the PPIP exposes participants to a model or
demonstration of the kind of behavior the program asks them to learn. Such training
assumes that if people are motivated enough to master the behavior, then being able to
continually compare their own behavior with the behavior of a model is a powerful
learning process. Obviously, trainers of the PPIP work hard to provide models of the
Influence Styles and Behaviors, and we encourage individual participants to emulate
and practice the behaviors they see modeled.

Role Playing. A final root of the PPIP comes from Gestalt psychotherapy, particularly
as practiced by Fritz Perls. The Gestalt approach also emerged from German
phenomenological psychology, mentioned earlier. Its practitioners emphasized the
importance of the present moment for learning. They focused specifically on nonverbal
behavior as clues to feelings and intention. Gestalt therapists also used role
playing—asking a client to act out hypothetical situations, feelings, and behaviors, as a
means of helping the person get closer to actual behavior and the emotional content of
the moment, so that it could be observed and identified. Role playing also has become a pervasive and powerful educational technology in many training programs, providing
learners with opportunities to experience important situations in a safe environment,
and to practice and rehearse behaviors that they wish to use in real situations. The PPIP
uses this technology extensively. As participants work on exploring and practicing
Influence Styles, they attend not only to speech but also to tone of voice and body
language. This multiple focus reflects the importance of nonverbal behavior on
behavioral intent and impact.

In summary, as a training program the PPIP was designed to help participants learn
about their current use of influence, explore and practice desired influence skills, and
begin to apply them to real interpersonal and organizational situations. To accomplish
these learning goals, the Program’s design philosophy draws from a rich heritage:
personality and behavioral assessment, the study of individual behavior in groups and
group dynamics, experiential learning, adult education, behavior modification,
behavior modeling, and role playing.

The PPIP’s Activity Flow

SMS’ belief in the power of the above educational methodologies led to specific design
decisions. While some details have changed over the years, the design basics have
remained very stable.

• Adults like to be self-directed in their approach to learning.
• The adult learner’s extensive personal experience is a valuable learning resource.
• Readiness to learn is based on the adult’s perceived need to enhance skills.
• Adults want training to be focused on skills that they can apply.

These assumptions continue to govern the development of all SMS training programs.
Moreover, they led to the following basic design decisions for the First Edition of the
PPIP, decisions that we have continued to implement over succeeding revisions and
upgrades of the Program.

1. Begin with collecting extensive self-assessment data on current influence behavior.

All Program participants receive a pre-program package that includes a behavioral
skills survey. We include self-rating versions, as well as copies for specifically
identified colleagues to complete and return to the participant. Participants bring
this information to the Program for additional analysis and integration into
ongoing learning. The non-anonymous nature of the questionnaire supports the
core belief about the role of situational differences.

The Program itself begins with exercises designed to help participants gather online
data about their current repertoire of influence skills, so that they recognize
the current distribution of those skills according to the core model of influence
behavior derived from the research.

2. Once self-assessment has occurred, provide opportunities to explore unfamiliar, underused, or undervalued influence skills.

This period of intensive skill exploration allows participants to make informed
decisions about how to use the remainder of the Program to pursue adding new
skills, improve current skills, or build on existing strengths. We believe that
individual participants are capable of evaluating their experience and formulating
personally relevant learning goals.

3. Proceed to self-directed learning, where the resources of the Program and of participants can be applied to creative practicing of desired skills.

The “self-directed learning” approach was developed and refined by Roger
Harrison (see Harrison, in press) as a founder of SMS, and specifically for the PPIP.
During this phase of the Program, participants determine what to work on, when,
and with whom. They manage their time, activity, and risk levels so as to
maximize their individual learning. Participants engage:

• In an environment of maximum feasible choice.
• With a range of equally valued alternatives.
• Surrounded by norms supporting individual responsibility and independence.
• So that they examine and reflect on all activities and exercises.

Also during this period, participants become increasingly aware of their own
“learning style preferences,” and they use that awareness to guide their choice of
activities.

4. Finally, each participant applies skills and knowledge acquired during the Program to a critical upcoming influence situation.

The final PPIP activity is the planning, preparation, and rehearsal of a key, personally important influence event. Participants learn to diagnose situations,
select an influence approach with the highest probability of success for the
situation, and practice implementing that approach with intensive consultation
and coaching. This activity ensures that participants focus on skills they can apply,
in circumstances relevant to them. Over many years, thousands of participants,
from many organizations, have reported that this phase of the Program has had
the highest impact and “return on investment.”

PPIP: The Second Edition (1981)

Once SMS introduced the PPIP to the U.S. and international market, there was suddenly
plenty of opportunity to test the Program’s design effectiveness, collect feedback from
many different trainers, and assess the impact on hundreds of participants in many
different organizational cultures. These experiences, as well as the results of ongoing
research by other scholars, generated important data about potential program
refinements.

The Second Edition of the Positive Power and Influence Program appeared in 1981, and
included ideas and suggestions from more than 100 training consultants in the United
States, Europe, South America, and Australia who had worked with the First Edition.
SMS colleagues—Alex Moore, Bonnie Kasten, and Richard Baker—were especially
helpful in this effort. David Berlew and Earl Rose were the primary authors of the
Second Edition Participant Workbook and Trainer Manual.

As a result of theses many suggestions and ideas, as well as the emerging body of
research on influence behavior in organizations, SMS designed, tested, and
implemented some changes in the core influence skills model used in the Program.
Influence Style labels were changed, and new instrument items were written and tested
to accommodate the changes.

Other changes to the Program involved adding needed structure to certain activities,
changing the exercise mix available to participants, and tightening the activity flow to
better incorporate adult learning theory.

PPIP: The Third Edition (1987)

The Third Edition of the Positive Power and Influence Program, released in 1987,
represented a major revision of both the participant and trainer materials. It featured an updated model based on additional new research, more graphics, a shorter and more useful Pre-Program Assignment, more focus on Disengaging, and several new readings as well as a completely redesigned Trainer Manual. Earl Rose took the lead in
preparing the Third Edition’s Participant Workbook and Trainer Manual. Other SMS
contributors included Irv Rubin, Dane Harwood, Alex Moore, Tom Gosselin, Bill
McCormick, and Nort Salz. Additional key suggestions came from Cliff Bolster, Kim
Barnes, and many other certified trainers.

In 1990, SMS developed and released the Positive Power and Influence: Advanced
Workshop for PPI graduates. Earl Rose authored this follow-up Program, now availableworldwide. PPIP-AW is designed for both review and refreshment of skills. The
workshop also explores influence problems involving positional power.

Earl Rose and Dane Harwood lead the development effort for the Fourth Edition. In
this edition, they added many readings to support learning during the Program, as
well as additional post-program material support. They also sharpened both the
conceptual and procedural elements of the Program’s design, focusing especially on
applications technology. Many colleagues, domestically and internationally, have
contributed to this work.