- 1 “I’m Right. So Why Won’t They Move?”
- 2 Session A: Influencing Subordinates – When a Perfect Strategy Gets Rejected
- 3 Session B: Managing Up – The Fall of a Fast-Rising Star
- 4 The Principle That Connects Both Cases
- 5 A Question I Can’t Stop Thinking About
- 6 Power Is Not a Weapon. It’s a Currency.
- 7 What I’ll Do Differently Starting Tomorrow
- 8 Recommended Reading
“I’m Right. So Why Won’t They Move?”
If you’ve ever led a team, you’ve hit this wall.
You laid out the data. You built an airtight argument. You even showed results from a pilot project. And yet—your team resists. Your boss doesn’t get it. The meeting ends without buy-in, and your perfectly rational initiative stalls out.
Day 2 of Globis MBA’s “Power and Influence” course tackled this problem head-on. The session was split into two themes: influencing subordinates and managing up. Through two very different case studies, one principle kept surfacing: influence isn’t about being right—it’s about being received.
As someone who has spent 28 years in IT, most of them in management, I found these lessons uncomfortably close to home. Here’s what I took away.
Session A: Influencing Subordinates – When a Perfect Strategy Gets Rejected
The leader did everything “right”
The first case involved a leader introducing a new methodology to an established team. This leader had done the homework—data-backed evidence, a successful pilot, a phased rollout plan. On paper, it was textbook change management.
But the team pushed back. Hard. “Our current approach works fine.” “This outside method doesn’t fit us.” The resistance was emotional, not logical, and it nearly killed the initiative.
Logic can’t breach an emotional wall
What emerged from the class discussion was striking: the leader had followed all the right steps, yet missed something fundamental.
The leader relied on positional power (authority) and personal power (expertise and data) to drive the change. But the team members held a different kind of power—one rooted in years of shared identity and professional pride. They saw themselves as experts in their domain, and being told to adopt an “outside” methodology felt like an attack on that identity.
This is the gap between being right and getting through. The data proved the new approach was better. But for the team, changing their methods meant questioning who they were. No spreadsheet can overcome that.
Effective influence requires what I’d call emotional literacy—the ability to read what people value, what they fear, and what they need to hear before they can move.
I’ve been that leader
Studying this case, I recognized myself.
A few years ago, my company rolled out a global project management platform. The business case was solid, the executive mandate was clear, and I personally agreed it was the right move. So I presented it to my team with full confidence.
The veteran members didn’t budge. On the surface, it was “we don’t have time to learn a new tool” and “our current system works.” But underneath, I think the real issue was pride. These were people who had spent nearly two decades perfecting their workflow for a specific client. “Standardization” felt like erasure.
At the time, I did exactly what the case study leader did—pushed harder with data and logic. What I should have done was acknowledge their expertise first. Something like: “Your deep experience is exactly why you’re the right people to make this new platform work better than anyone else could.”
Influence means entering the other person’s worldview and redirecting from within. It doesn’t mean lobbing your rightness at them from the outside. That was the visceral takeaway from Session A.
Session B: Managing Up – The Fall of a Fast-Rising Star
When personal power isn’t enough
The second case flipped the dynamic entirely. A talented young professional had been promoted rapidly thanks to strong client relationships, a track record of results, and sheer drive. Classic personal power.
But after the promotion, things fell apart. The relationship with the new boss deteriorated, and the young professional’s career was suddenly at risk.
Misreading the power asymmetry
The class discussion kept returning to two themes: the asymmetry of power sources and the failure to package influence appropriately.
The boss held layered power—formal authority, deep organizational networks, influence over evaluations, and the ability to shape narratives with senior leadership. This wasn’t just positional power; it was an entire ecosystem of influence.
The young professional’s fatal error was failing to recognize this asymmetry. Confident in their own abilities and track record, they openly challenged the boss’s direction, skipped reporting requirements, and made unilateral decisions. Each of these moves, however well-intentioned, registered as insubordination.
When “right” becomes “rebellious”
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: the young professional’s ideas may not have been wrong. Their market insights might have been valid. Their initiative to explore new business areas might have created long-term value.
But they delivered those ideas without regard for the boss’s power structure. They skipped status updates, contradicted the boss in meetings, and framed their results in personal terms rather than organizational ones.
When a correct opinion is delivered in the wrong container, it gets labeled as defiance. This happens in workplaces everywhere, every day.
A phrase from the session stuck with me: “Influence only works within the context of a relationship.” This case was a masterclass in what happens when you ignore that principle.
The art of managing up
So what should the young professional have done? The class introduced the concept of boss management—and it’s not about being a yes-person or playing politics.
It means understanding your boss’s power base, decision-making style, and priorities, then translating your influence into a format they can receive.
Concretely, that looks like: adapting to the organization’s communication norms first to establish yourself as an insider, not a threat. Asking questions to understand the reasoning behind your boss’s directives. Repackaging market insights and client feedback into material that serves the boss’s agenda. Proposing new ideas as complements rather than contradictions—”This perspective might strengthen your approach” instead of “Your approach is wrong.”
Having personal power and being able to deploy it effectively inside an organization are two entirely different skills.
The Principle That Connects Both Cases
At first glance, the two cases seem like opposites. One is about leading down; the other is about influencing up. But the underlying lesson is identical:
Influence is determined not by what you hold, but by what lands.
The leader in Session A had strategy and data but couldn’t reach the team’s emotional core. The young professional in Session B had market instincts and energy but couldn’t match the boss’s operating frequency.
Both possessed power. Both failed to convert that power into influence.
Day 1 of the course introduced a five-step framework: clarify your vision, analyze the situation, set your stance, design your approach, and observe the response. Day 2 drove home that the hardest part is step three and four—designing for the specific person in front of you. One size never fits all.
A Question I Can’t Stop Thinking About
Near the end of the session, the instructor posed a question:
“Who are you trying to influence right now? And is your message actually reaching them?”
That question followed me home.
Honestly, I have more examples than I’d like to admit. In 28 years as an IT manager, I’ve had countless moments where I needed to communicate risk, propose schedule changes, or drive process improvements. And looking back, I can see too many instances where I was satisfied with having said the right thing, without checking whether it actually landed.
“Said” is not “heard.” “Right” is not “moved.”
These are obvious truths. But studying them through case analysis—at a safe distance from my own ego—finally made them click at a gut level.
Power Is Not a Weapon. It’s a Currency.
After Day 2, my mental model of power shifted.
I used to think of power as a weapon. You either have it or you don’t. If you have it, you can make people move.
Now I think of power as currency. Currency only works when the other party recognizes its value. You can hold a fortune in Japanese yen, but it’s useless in a country that doesn’t accept it. In the same way, your personal power—no matter how impressive—has zero influence if the other person’s context doesn’t recognize it as valuable.
The leader’s “rationality” was a currency the team didn’t trade in. The young professional’s “market sense” was a currency the boss hadn’t verified.
To wield influence, you first need to understand what currency the other person accepts, then exchange your power into that denomination. This was the single most practical insight from Day 2.
What I’ll Do Differently Starting Tomorrow
The more I study power and influence, the more my everyday interactions look different.
After Day 2, I’m committing to three changes:
First, see their world before asserting mine. Before proposing anything, I’ll take time to understand what the other person values, takes pride in, and fears. Their worldview comes before my argument.
Second, check the exchange rate. I’ll ask myself how my strengths and credentials appear from the other person’s perspective—and translate them into a form that carries weight in their context.
Third, verify delivery, not just dispatch. Sending an email or speaking up in a meeting is not influence. I’ll observe the reaction, and if the message didn’t land, I’ll change the approach.
Being right doesn’t move people. But being right in a way that reaches them—that can change everything.
I’m starting with tomorrow’s meeting.
