Influence Management training in Geneva · canton of GenèveManaging through influence in the canton of Geneva: how can commitment be checked beyond agreement in principle?
Geneva brings together international organisations, private banks, commodity trading houses and watch brands within a small area, with highly multicultural teams in which French and English coexist. For the “Manager par influence” programme, this setting raises a particularly relevant question: how can operational commitment be distinguished from polite agreement?
1. What the literature establishes
Gary Yukl and J. Bruce Tracey (1992, Journal of Applied Psychology) examine relationships between influence tactics, commitment to a request and perceived managerial effectiveness. In their study, rational persuasion, consultation and inspirational appeals are associated with more favourable outcomes than pressure, legitimating tactics or coalitions. These findings point towards an approach that explains the reasons for acting and involves the other person, rather than simply invoking a mandate.
2. A complementary mechanism: being able to voice reservations
Amy Edmondson (1999, Administrative Science Quarterly) identifies an association between team psychological safety and learning behaviour. Psychological safety is a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, including asking questions or acknowledging mistakes. Applied cautiously to influence, this mechanism suggests that consultation gives managers meaningful information only when people can also challenge the proposal.
3. The premature conclusion: consultation alone will persuade
Consultation does not remove conflicting interests or regulatory responsibilities. In a hypothetical Geneva example, a private banking project manager might involve compliance at an early stage without securing its approval: an objection may reveal a genuine constraint rather than a failure to influence. Managing through influence therefore requires distinguishing what can be negotiated from what falls within a responsibility that cannot be delegated. (our executive and employee training programmes)
4. The limits of the evidence and of common practice
These studies do not concern the canton of Geneva, and their associations do not establish that a tactic will have the same effect everywhere. The psychological safety study examines work teams rather than directly testing cross-functional requests in Geneva’s industries. In an international organisation, a watchmaking company or a commodity trading house, switching between French and English may also leave terms such as “agreement”, “approval” and “commitment” insufficiently defined: this is a practical risk to check, not an established local finding.
5. A practical check in Genève
One exercise for applying the “Manager par influence” programme in Geneva is to record the expected contribution, scope for negotiation and reservations expressed for each cross-functional request, using the agreed working language. Then ask the other person to restate the accepted action, its owner and its deadline, distinguishing verbal agreement from explicit commitment. Over one month, count verbal agreements, those specifying all three elements and actions actually completed by the deadline: this provides a verifiable measure of the gap between agreement and execution, without claiming to isolate the training’s causal effect. To go further: explore the Influence Management training in Geneva in the canton of Geneva, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Influence Management in Geneva
- influence management
- Geneva
- research
- training geneva