Introduction: The Influence Playbook Is Not Enough

For decades, business schools have taught us that influence is a science, one that can be systematized, optimized, and applied like a formula. Robert Cialdini’s six principles of influence, from reciprocity and consistency to authority and scarcity, are considered foundational. Dan Ariely’s work in behavioural economics adds depth to this thinking, showing how easily and predictably people can be “nudged” toward decisions.

The patterns they describe are real. These models capture psychological tendencies that have been observed again and again.

But in that context their framing is incomplete, and in some cases, problematic.

They reduce rich human behaviour to simple cause-and-effect relationships. And while these descriptions make for easy communication of the concepts and practical application of those examples described, they also risk underestimating the people to whom they’re applied. They imply, sometimes subtly and sometimes not, that people are programmable, that if you push the right buttons, they’ll respond in predictable, exploitable ways.

But people are not machines. All of us, most of the time, are making thoughtful, contextually rational decisions. What looks irrational from the outside is often deeply reasonable when you understand a person’s schema, values, constraints, and lived experience.

That’s why these models, while accurate in parts, don’t work well as operating philosophies.

They can tell you how to win attention. But they don’t teach you how to earn trust.

What’s missing is agency, not just yours, but that of the customer, the employee, the partner, the human being on the other side of the interaction.

Because influence without agency is manipulation.

But influence with agency? That’s trust. That’s alignment. That’s the foundation of everything worth building in a business.

 

 

The Missing Ingredient: Agency

At the heart of this reframing is a single idea: agency.

Agency is the capacity to choose, to act in accordance with one’s own judgment, to evaluate options, and to make decisions freely. And it’s something that’s often overlooked in traditional models of persuasion, where the focus is on what people can be made to do, rather than what they want to do or choose to do for themselves.

When influence strategies are deployed without regard for agency, the result is manipulation, even if it doesn’t feel like it. Giving someone a free gift to trigger reciprocity may seem harmless. But if the gift is designed primarily to extract something rather than to offer something, it quietly degrades the relationship. It removes freedom by introducing subtle pressure. And it does so under the surface, which makes it hard to name and even harder to challenge.

But when we start with the assumption that people are thoughtful and capable, that they can weigh options, understand value, and make sound choices, everything changes. The goal is no longer to “get the yes.” The goal is to create something worth saying yes to, and then let people decide.

This isn’t just about customers. Inside the business, agency matters just as much.

Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of leading and contributing to a wide range of product initiatives, some highly technical, some commercially complex, all requiring close coordination between teams. The projects that succeeded most consistently were those where skilled people were trusted to bring their full selves to the work. Where ideas came from everywhere, not just the top. Where success was shared.

That wasn’t always my approach. Early in my career, I believed success came from having the best ideas, the sharpest strategy, or the most complete plan. I saw the project as something of a proving ground, a way to show that I was right.

But over time, I learnt that the success of a product doesn’t come from how right any one person is, it comes from how well the team works together, and how free they are to engage with the problem fully. That’s what leads to products people believe in, and more importantly, products that succeed long after the launch is over.

The reality is: most of the people you’ll hire, or sell to, or collaborate with, are not irrational, as is the claim. They may make decisions that surprise you, but rarely for no reason. And when given space, trust, and clarity, they almost always rise to meet the challenge.

That’s where the real power of agency lies. It’s not just about freedom. It’s about confidence, commitment, and connection, the things you can’t fake and can’t force, but that make all the difference when the work gets hard.

 

 

When Agency Disappears, So Does Accuracy, Energy, and Growth

One of the most dangerous assumptions in business is that the product journey ends at launch. A team builds the product, it goes live, and then, in theory, it runs itself. In reality, that’s when the real work begins.

Once a product is in-market, it becomes a living part of the business. or aty least it's broiught to life through the people who deliver, maintain and manage it. It shapes financial processes, marketing strategies, delivery models, and customer support. And every one of these functions depends on continued care, continued learning, and continued agency.

When people inside the business feel they have no influence, when the decisions come from elsewhere, when solutions are handed down as instructions rather than co-created through conversation, engagement fades. That disengagement doesn’t always look dramatic. But it shows up quietly, and repeatedly:

• A billing error that nobody catches.
• A customer complaint that’s handled mechanically instead of empathetically.
• A marketing campaign that misses the mark because the team no longer feels ownership of the product story.
• A delivery delay that could’ve been avoided if someone felt empowered to flag the risk earlier.

These aren’t just operational hiccups. They’re signals of lost connection, signs that the people responsible for sustaining the product have stopped seeing themselves in its success.

And when that connection fades, something even more costly disappears: momentum. Products lose the ability to evolve, to adapt, to discover new markets or new value. Because uncovering those opportunities, seeing new angles, finding new use cases, takes focus, curiosity, and care. And those don’t exist in teams that have been taught just to execute.

Culture as a Catalyst: The Power of “This Is How We Do Things”

Culture plays a central role here. When leadership reinforces that "this is the way we do things", and that "our way is good", it creates alignment. It doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to be coherent, and owned by the people inside it.

In an agency-driven culture, “the way we do things” includes talking openly, adapting thoughtfully, and sharing responsibility for outcomes. It creates an internal language of trust. And it encourages resilience when priorities shift, problems arise, or plans evolve.

The opposite? That’s a culture where control is mistaken for leadership, where detailed instructions replace shared vision, and where initiative is slowly eroded in favor of compliance. Even the most capable people, when treated as executors instead of partners, eventually disengage.

A Simple Example: Problem-Solving as Relationship-Building

Here’s a practical contrast that illustrates the difference.

In one approach, you give someone a problem to solve, support them as they explore it, and work together to adapt the solution as new needs emerge. If you later realize you missed something important, you say:

“I’ve learned a bit more since we last spoke, I now understand there are other needs I wasn’t aware of. Can we explore those together?”

This creates a dynamic of trust, partnership, and shared investment in the outcome. It respects both your judgment and theirs. It leads to better results, and to stronger relationships.

In the other approach, you come back with a fully prescribed solution, perhaps saying:

“I’ve looked into it more, and here’s exactly what I need you to do, just follow these five steps.”

Even when intentions are good, and the intention is to not take more time than is absolutely neccessary, this shuts down contribution. It assumes there’s nothing more to learn from the other side. And even if the solution is technically correct, the implementation will lack energy, insight, and long-term buy-in. It's "their solution, not our solution".

The difference between these two approaches is stark.

The difference in the outcomes? Exponential.

 

 

Leadership’s Role: Building Capability, Not Just Delivering Projects

A product in-market is not a completed milestone, it’s a strategic capability the business can draw on, develop, and leverage. It can open the door to new customer segments, create operational efficiencies, offer negotiating leverage, or shape how the business positions itself in a changing market. With only small changes or additions it can open the door to an entirely new sales strategy.

That makes it every bit as relevant to leadership after launch as before.

But the nature of that relevance shifts. It’s no longer about steering the ship moment by moment, it’s about investing in momentum, supporting the teams who live closest to the product, and drawing strategic value from what the product enables.  Engaging with the product in this way shifts strategic agility from relying on entirely new launches to unlocking value through a few well-chosen feature additions.

Leadership at every level, team leads, department heads, function owners, C-suite, can engage meaningfully in the product’s life without overriding the teams who build and maintain it. The most effective leaders I’ve seen do this by choosing to contribute in ways that expand clarity, alignment, and usefulness across the business:

• Championing cross-functional collaboration so that silos don’t stifle evolution.
• Committing to understand customer experiences directly, and bringing insights back to the product team in ways that respect their ownership.
• Spotting and sponsoring small improvements that enable other teams to succeed, such as helping add a sub-account field to an invoice, which may seem minor but dramatically speeds up payments for the customer’s finance team.
• Connecting product features to business levers, making it easier to adapt pricing, strategy, or commercial tactics in changing conditions.

These contributions are more than helpful, they’re essential. They allow leadership to actively amplify the product’s value long after launch, and to unlock options that only become visible when someone is looking through both strategic and operational lenses. They ensure that strategic decisions are grounded in what’s actually possible, shaped by insight from the people closest to the product and its constraints.  

And just as importantly, they offer leadership something to commit themselves to in moments when the temptation to take control arises. That temptation is natural, especially when you’ve sponsored the product’s creation and feel a deep stake in its success.

But instead of managing outcomes directly, the more sustainable move is to invest in the system that supports the outcome. To shape the environment in which the product and its people thrive. To stay close enough to offer value, but far enough to let agency flourish.

That’s not stepping back. That’s stepping into a longer game, one where the product, and the people around it, keep getting better.

That commitment is especially important when external pressures mount. Senior executives, particularly at the C-level, often find themselves balancing internal stewardship with external demands from shareholders, boards, regulators, or markets. In those moments, the temptation to take direct control can spike. But control is not the antidote to uncertainty, capability is. The more deeply the business understands, owns, and evolves its product capabilities, the more resilient it becomes under pressure. And that resilience is built not through command, but through clarity, cohesion, and trust. This can be a challenge, even when the pressure isn't on.

 

Why This Works, and What the Research Shows

You don’t need research to know that people do their best work when they feel trusted, respected, and free to contribute. You’ve probably seen it firsthand, in the way a team comes alive when they’re solving a real problem, or the way someone lights up when their insight is taken seriously.

But it turns out, the science backs this up too.

Two of the most widely studied psychological concepts in team and individual performance, self-efficacy and psychological safety, help explain why agency-led leadership works better, lasts longer, and delivers more resilient outcomes.

 

Self-Efficacy: The Confidence to Contribute

Psychologist Albert Bandura defined self-efficacy as a person’s belief in their ability to influence events and outcomes, to take action and see it matter. According to his research, people with high self-efficacy don’t just perform better, they also persevere longer, recover faster from setbacks, and adapt more readily to change.

That’s exactly what agency-based leadership unlocks.

When team members feel they’re responsible for solving meaningful problems, not just executing a to-do list, their belief in their own value grows. They become more confident, more creative, and more committed. And that confidence becomes self-reinforcing: the more they act, the more capable they feel, and the more value they create.

I’ve seen this dynamic again and again. Not just in developers, designers, or customer support teams, but in finance staff who find ways to improve payment cycles, marketers who uncover new audiences, and account managers who flag operational blind spots before they become customer issues. These aren’t instructions followed, they’re contributions made.

When people believe they can make a difference, they do.

 

Psychological Safety: The Environment for Excellence

But belief in one’s own ability isn’t enough on its own. Amy Edmondson, a Harvard Business School professor, introduced the concept of psychological safety, the idea that teams thrive when people feel safe to speak up, ask questions, make mistakes, and challenge ideas.

Without that safety, agency becomes a liability. People hold back. They withhold feedback. They play it safe. And innovation dies quietly.

Agency thrives only in an environment where it's okay to try, okay to fail, and okay to think differently. That kind of environment doesn’t happen by accident, it’s cultivated. And that’s where leadership plays a foundational role.

When leaders sponsor clarity and curiosity instead of control, they signal that risk-taking is part of the job. When they ask questions instead of giving directives, they invite engagement. When they acknowledge their own learning in public, they give everyone else permission to grow.

Psychological safety is not about being nice. It’s about being real and building a team strong enough to handle it.

 

The Science Validates What Experience Already Shows

The principles of agency, autonomy, and mutual respect aren’t just feel-good philosophies. They are performance drivers.

• Teams with high psychological safety outperform those without, regardless of experience or skill.
• Individuals with high self-efficacy achieve more, stick with problems longer, and contribute more ideas.
• Businesses that build on trust, not control, recover faster from setbacks and adapt more effectively to market shifts.

In short, this model works.

Not just ethically. Not just culturally. But operationally.

It’s not a soft approach. It’s a strong one, because it builds capability that lasts.

 

A Different Lens on Influence and Leadership

There’s a reason the traditional models of influence, from Cialdini to Ariely, have become staples in business. They’re useful. They describe real human behaviours. They give people tools to understand decision-making in high-stakes environments. They offer something predictable in a world that often isn’t.

And perhaps one of their greatest appeals is their simplicity. In a time-constrained business environment, models like these give us something quick, actionable, and broadly applicable. They feel like permission, a way to move the needle without overcomplicating the human side.

But while simplicity is valuable, so is depth. And influence isn’t just a tactic, it’s a relationship. It's not just about what we can get others to do, but how we choose to show up.

This perspective, centred on agency, alignment, and authenticity, may seem harder at first glance. It’s certainly slower in some ways. It asks more of us as leaders. It requires trust, patience, and a little more humility than we’re sometimes used to.

But in practice, it often turns out to be easier in other ways:

• Fewer performance management headaches.
• Stronger alignment without constant escalation.
• Products that evolve because teams feel responsible for them, not because they’ve been told to.
• Teams that take care of the details because the product feels like theirs, not just yours.

And the results speak for themselves.

This approach has helped turn businesses around.

It has made a success of complex mergers where integration seemed impossible.

It has generated large, sustained revenue streams in markets where transactional models fell short.

So, here’s the invitation, and the challenge:

If you’ve been relying on influence as a lever, try stepping back.

Try building clarity, instead of control.

Try making space for agency, and see what happens.

It may not be the easiest model to adopt at first.

But it is one of the easiest to live with, for your team, your customers, and yourself.

And in the long run, it may prove not only more ethical, but more effective.

Because when trust becomes the product,

influence takes care of itself.