Want to build influence? Or measure it? Here are four things you need to know:

Influence is simple…
which makes it complicated.

At its most simple, influence is the ability to make things happen. But which things? For whom? Over what span of time? Some people influence ideas, some actions. Some influence big actions, some small. Some influence lasts a moment, some lasts a lifetime.

When we talk about influence, and particularly when we talk about measuring it, we have to define our terms…and know the limits.

Influence is contextual.

Someone writes a post. Someone else retweets it. Another person sees the retweet, reads the post, and writes a comment. Still another person finds the post on his own and then follows the commenter’s advice, to the benefit of hundreds of others.

Each person took an action. Each action had an effect. But which action is the most important? Who had the most influence?

(Not so easy, is it?)

Influence depends on the situation and what you care about. The cause (the idea)? The effect (the actions, the results)? Or the connection between the two? Whether building or measuring influence, we need to understand which type of influence is important, and why.

Influence is the product of reach and authority.

To influence the actions of others, you have to have access to them—and they have to perceive you to have some level of authority, either over them or in an area of expertise they value. Popularity helps with access: the more popular you are, the more reach you have, and thus the greater possibility of influence. But popularity doesn’t guarantee influence, it only opens more doors. And it’s ephemeral: tastes change, needs change.

Authority doesn’t guarantee influence either, though you could argue its tie is stronger. Whether granted or earned over time, authority has the potential to intensify influence: authority grants power.

But it’s ephemeral, too. Earned authority—gained over repeated interactions—lasts as long as its integrity and its relevance do. Granted authority (as in the case of a leader or manager), often lasts only as long as the appointment (or the appointee…) does.

Influence requires both reach and authority, to varying degrees. Focusing on only one or the other will leave you seeing half the picture. Or less. Both need attention. And constant maintenance.

(Most) Influence is invisible.

You see a cause. You see an effect. What you can’t see, and never will, is where influence actually happens: in the “and” between the two. You can’t see inside every individual head to know or understand if and how the two relate, because it happens in the back channel. In instant messages, in DMs, in phone calls, emails, and Waves (sniff…). In person, in meetings. At lunches and dinners and breakfasts. Out of town. Out of sight.

That’s why what we can see gets so much attention, and measuring it the cause of such debate. But understand this: for every person consciously exhibiting their influence (and influences), there are just as many (or more) consciously shielding it.

Every King has his Merlin. Every Influencer has her own.

And you’ll likely never really know who they—the real influencers—are.

•
At heart, influence is something we can only guess at based on what we see. We can throw metrics at it, but that’s like throwing dust at light, trying to see the beam.

Like throwing a sheet at the Invisible Man, trying to see what can’t be seen.

Is that what you see, too? Tell me.

image credit: ~Twon~

We’re a little too focused on collecting humans like marbles.

Our fans. Followers. Subscribers. Impressions.

Once upon a time, numbers like gross circulation mattered a bit more, because the available channels and paths for information were somewhat limited. So by putting yourself visibly in one of them, chances were pretty good that you’d actually be seen, and command a fair bit of someone’s attention, at least for a few moments.

Now? Not nearly. Clicking “follow” or “like” is a fleeting, non-commital moment. And just as easily, that attention is off and elsewhere. (How many pages have you liked – whether sincere or just out of support for a friend – and never revisited?). It’s the equivalent of someone picking up the flyer and tossing it in the next trash can. Veneered attention is so easy to give out, because it doesn’t take our time, our effort, or even our brainpower. We simply need to click. And move on.

Is that really the only way you want to define success?

What That Number Does Tell You

What the larger network size represents – has always represented – is potential.

The number of your fans, followers, blog subscribers – they only ever represent the possible scope of your network. And it’s likely an inflated one at that.

Not all of those people are paying attention at any given time, certainly not in today’s firehose of information. An even smaller portion of those paying attention in that moment are actually in the right frame of mind to hear what you’re talking about, posting, or offering. And then again, a smaller percentage of those attentive and interested will actually act.

The balance for you is that of course, you want the greatest possible potential. So sure, building a broad network with large reach can be a good thing. But in order for that potential to pay off somehow, you want to expend the effort growing both the size of your audience as well as the density of its overall relevance to your work.

This is really what we’re saying when we refer to quality over quantity. Having 500 engaged and interested community member versus 50,000 ambivalent ones. Size only matters if there’s substance beneath.

Patience, Padawan

Building that powerful network, though – the one with both reach and relevance – takes relentless work and patience. It requires:

• Targeting: which means understanding your audience incredibly well so that you know where to seek them out, and can identify them when you find them.
• Filtered acquisition: focusing your work, outreach, and content on that customer profile (as well as being willing to let go of those that don’t fit the bill).
• Nurturing: providing value to your existing customers in a consistent fashion, through content, products and services, community experiences, or otherwise.
• Propagation: Making everything shareable and spreadable as much as possible so your current “good fit” customers and community can help you identify others.

None of these are instant. They require time and effort. Sometimes you have to adjust them based on what you learn, or how your business changes. But over time, they together return a more sustainable network fabric.

The second one is the hardest for most businesses; we’ve always done the “cast the net wide and hope to catch a few good fish” approach. It’s just far less efficient today than it once was. Why? Simple laws of supply and demand. The supply of information, opportunity, and people and businesses vying for our attention FAR, FAR outweighs the demand for it. And the minute we give our attention, we’re distracted by a zillion other things.

But there’s still a demand market based on personalized experiences, experiences with companies that feel like they’re well-tailored to our needs as customers, and backed up without outstanding service and delivery. So getting attention is harder, and keeping it is harder still. The only answer for the latter is delivering great business, relentlessly, and in response to  - and in anticipation of – what your customers tell you they need. (Remember, though, that the quality of that experiences is determined by the customers, not how awesome you think you are.)

Making the Case For Relevant Reach

Fishing with a net seems like the easier approach. And it can be tempting to just gather, gather, gather. Counting our marbles, celebrating how many we have, amassing some numbers that look impressive on a spreadsheet. And stopping there.

But when you want to show your results, is it more impressive to see:

50,000 Facebook Fans and 3% of them took a qualified action (opted into a newsletter, purchased something, wrote a positive review…something more than just clicking a link)

or

7,500 Twitter Followers and 20% of them took a qualified action

If I’m the boss, the second set of numbers is much more telling to me. The net result is the same on the surface – 1,500 people did something – but the second is a greater activated proportion of our audience. That ratio represents focus, efficiency, and impact. Those things matter.

So what we want isn’t just reach, but relevant reach.

If your total number of fans, followers, or subscribers is the potential, when the ratio goes up, the larger network yields even better results. Not only are they more likely to do, say, or create something that’s valuable to you, it gives you a richer base upon which to build communications and invest in those people in return. The reach may be part of the means, but it is not remotely the end.

It’s a different way of thinking. But then again, we’re in the midst of a different way of doing a lot of things.

I think we focus much too heavily on collecting superficial demonstrations of attention, and not nearly enough on the composition of the communities we build.

What do you think?

How many times have you set a goal…and just missed it?

For a lot of us, “just missing it” is tantamount to failure. For recovering perfectionists like myself, it’s all too easy to see success in terms of black and white, and the goals that get us there as pass/fail tests.

How do we change that?

Expand your definition of success

As I said to Elizabeth Sosnow in the comments here a few weeks back, it’s often more helpful to measure the distance we’ve traveled than the distance we’ve yet to go. The first is real accomplishment; the second still unknown.

That “miles traveled” measure can be enormously helpful when we’ve lost sight of a big goal, or feel overwhelmed by the time or distance it’ll take to get there. But it can be even more helpful when we build it in from the get-go.

Set three stages

As good as the SMART methodology is for setting goals and objectives, it doesn’t account for the unknown. But we can. By setting three stages of success we account for the inevitable ups and downs of life, of things beyond our control.

The Aspirational

This is probably the one you set first, particularly since most of us like to aim high and go for the “stretch.” It’s the butt-kicking one, the one you know you could achieve, IF you really buckle down and devote the time, energy, and resources you need to…AND if the universe cooperates, which it often doesn’t.

It’s the one that feels just out of reach, but you know it’s possible with focus and hard work.

Grow our LinkedIn Group to 250 members (a 25% increase) by the end of the year.
Lose 30 pounds by the end of the year. (~2 pounds a week)

The Achievable

This is the one that, if we look at past performance, is likely where we’ll end up. Since your Aspirational goal or objective requires significant additional resources (if only in effort and concentration), set this one based on what you can do, given no or modest additional investment. Working backwards from the Aspirational stage, adjust the timeframe, or the measurement…or both.

Grow our LinkedIn Group to 220 members (a 10% increase) by the end of the year.
Lose 15 pounds by the end of the year. (~1 pound a week)

The Acceptable

This is the one you’d be happy with—and consider an achievement of note—even if everything that could go wrong did. I.e., it accounts for the abnormal course of reality: Unexpected budget cuts, employee absences, competitor moves, leadership (and priority) transitions, etc. Holidays, in-laws, surprise parties, bad days/weeks/months at work (or no work), life events, etc.

Grow our LinkedIn Group to 220 members in six months.
Lose 5 pounds by the end of the year. (a little less than ~1/2 pound a week)

•
By setting three stages up front we suddenly turn a single measure of success into a range. We acknowledge what might hold us back AND, at the same time, take away our excuses for not moving towards our goals despite the obstacles we might face.

Three stages, one target…more success.

See how it works? Would it work for you?

(And if you’re looking for a way to keep on track while pursuing your goals? Our friend Chris Brogan suggests we keep asking questions, in a post that inspired this one.)