Leadership Series

We’ve all seen leaders who rely on one-way influence — they try to persuade, cajole, or push their viewpoint on others. They deliver speeches, spin data, and use authority to get people to fall in line. That model still has power. But it’s brittle. In today’s complex, interconnected organizations, that kind of influence often backfires.

Enter the new paradigm: influence as a two-way street. Instead of trying to get others simply to adopt your view, great leaders co-create influence through dialogue, listening, and shared problem-solving. That’s at the heart of the MIT Sloan piece “Why Influence Is a Two-Way Street.”

Let me walk you through what that means—and how leaders can shift from monologues to conversations in influence.

The Reality: Influence Is Inevitable, But Often Misused

The authors of the Sloan article draw on nearly a decade of research (2015–2023). They surveyed ~1,400 executives across 500 companies and did 500 interviews in 45 organizations. One clear finding: managers said roughly one-third of their goals require collaboration with people outside their direct control.

That means much of what we do as leaders leans on influence — not positional power. And not surprisingly, many default to the “sell your idea” route. In fact, in the Sloan research, the “selling” style (getting others to agree with your view) was about twice as common as the collaborative approach. 

But the danger is that persuasion without partnership leads to resistance, hidden pushback, and fractured buy-in. If you win the argument but lose commitment, the result is fragility.

Four Ways Influence Is Wielded

The Sloan article distinguishes four influence styles:

No. 1 — Coercion

Compelling compliance through power or force

No. 2 — Manipulation

Shaping the narrative so people act “as you want” behind the scenes

No. 3 — Selling.

Persuading others to your viewpoint

No. 4 — Joint problem-solving.

Co-creating a solution with input, trade-offs, and negotiation 

Coercion and manipulation are rare (and often toxic) in healthy organizations. Selling is common, but it’s limited. The real shift is toward joint problem-solving, where influence becomes reciprocal.

In joint problem-solving, your role changes: you aren’t just the persuader. You become a facilitator of perspective-sharing, synthesis, and compromise. You invite others into shaping the path forward.

Why Two-Way Influence Beats One-Way

So why does this more participative approach pay off? Here are some reasons:

  • Better decisions. When multiple perspectives are surfaced rather than sidelined, the final outcome is stronger.
  • Ownership and accountability. People who help shape decisions feel more responsible for their success.
  • Trust and psychological safety. A two-way exchange signals respect and openness, reducing fear of speaking up.
  • Adaptability. In volatile environments, the ability to iterate together speeds alignment and course correction.

In the Sloan study, leaders who leaned toward collaborative models achieved better outcomes than those relying solely on persuasion. 

How to Practice Two-Way Influence (Without Losing Authority)

Switching from a monologue mindset to a conversational influence style takes intention. Here are practices to help:

No. 1 — Start with “what do you see?”

Open with genuine curiosity. Ask stakeholders: “What’s your take on this?” or “What worries or opportunities do you see?” That signals humility — and invites richer dialogue.

No. 2 — Surface underlying interests

Often conflicts or resistance arise from hidden priorities: resources, timing, risk exposure, incentives. Probe for the “why behind the why.” Ask: “What about this matters most to you?”

No. 3 — Frame shared constraints

Great joint problem-solving emerges when everyone acknowledges constraints — budgets, time, risk, mandate — and then explores the degrees of freedom together. That turns influence from “my idea vs. yours” into “how can we best navigate constraints together?”

No. 4 — Trade influence, not demands

You can’t always give everyone everything. But you can negotiate. Offer something in return for concessions. Maybe you’ll adjust timelines, provide more support, or co-own parts of implementation. Influence becomes currency — give something and ask for something.

No. 5 — Close with clarity and commitments

After dialogue, don’t leave the room in ambiguity. Summarize decisions, responsibilities, and fallback paths. That clarity ensures the influence effort doesn’t evaporate.

No. 6 — Reflect and iterate

After a project or decision, pause: what influence strategies worked? Which felt strained? Encourage feedback from collaborators on how the process felt. Over time, you refine your influence muscle.

Example in Practice: A Tale of Two Meetings

Here’s a fictional but realistic contrast to make this concrete:

Meeting A — The Sell

Maria, an operations leader, wants to launch a new cross-functional process to reduce handoff delays. She invites marketing, IT, and product leads. She starts with her data, her plan, and asks everyone to sign on. Some push back. She counters with more persuasion. By the end, some nod agreement, but others express reservations privately later. Execution is rocky; silos re-emerge.

Meeting B — The Co-Creation

Same goal. But this time, Maria begins the session by saying, “Here’s the problem we’ve observed. Before I share my idea, I’d love to hear your experiences, constraints, and ideas for how it might work.” She invites each leader to share what’s working, what’s broken. Together, they map dependencies, conflict zones, and then generate several possible paths. They vote or coalesce on a hybrid proposal. Each stakeholder leaves feeling heard and with skin in the game. Execution is smoother, and adjustments happen more fluidly.

In Meeting B, Maria turned influence into a conversation rather than a pitch.

When One-Way Influence Still Has a Place

A caveat: not all influence should be two-way. Some situations demand clarity and decisiveness, such as emergencies, regulatory mandates, or times when delay is disastrous. In those moments, persuasion or directive leadership might be appropriate.

But the default should lean toward reciprocal influence whenever complex trade-offs and cross-functional work are involved. The more ambiguity, the more you need collaboration.

Overcoming Roadblocks to Two-Way Influence

Transitioning isn’t always smooth. You may hit resistance — especially from people used to command-and-control. Here are common headwinds and how to navigate them:

  • “Too slow / too messy”. People may claim co-creation takes more time. The counter is that early investment in alignment often saves time by reducing downstream conflict.
  • Power dynamics. Those with strong authority may feel they’re giving up control. Frame it as a shift in style, not abdication of responsibility.
  • Unequal participation. Some voices dominate. Use structured methods: round-robin, anonymous cards, small breakout pairs.
  • Feedback resistance. Some may be uneasy giving input. Model openness, ask for feedback on the process itself.

The Influence Mindset Shift

At the heart of making influence two-way is a mindset shift:

  • From I want them to be persuaded → I want us to converge to the best solution
  • From My idea is right → My idea is a hypothesis worth testing
  • From Power lies in winning the war of words → Power lies in unlocking collective insight

One of the best lines from the Sloan article sums this up: “Managers achieve better outcomes when they prioritize collaborative decision-making over powers of persuasion.”

Why the World Needs Two-Way Influence Now

In increasingly networked, matrixed, agile, and remote organizations, traditional chains of command are stretched thin. Projects span silos, functions, geographies, and require orchestration rather than decree. In that world:

  • Influence through persuasion alone is brittle — won’t scale
  • Resistance will fester in hidden corners
  • The smartest ideas and trade-offs live in the intersections of perspectives

Two-way influence is not just “nice to have” — it’s becoming foundational. It’s about enabling alignment, speed, adaptability, and resilience.

Final Thoughts: Influence as Invitation

Turning influence into a two-way street is less about technique and more about ethos. It demands humility, openness, and the conviction that the best path forward is rarely solo. Influence isn’t about pushing your will; it’s about weaving together shared will.

So next time you head into a decision or debate, pause. Ask: “How can I influence this as a conversation?” Invite dissent, surface blind spots, seek synthesis — and let influence become an invitation, not a monologue.

Because when influence becomes two way, decisions become stronger, execution becomes smoother, and leadership becomes more generative.

CHECK OUT THIS WEEK’S DEEP DIVES BOOK SUMMARY

Leaders Eat Last: Why Some Teams Pull Together and Others Don’t

If You Liked This Article, You May Also Like …