What is The Without Authority Gap?

Most of your job depends on people who don't report to you; a team in another department, a stakeholder above your pay grade, or someone who can say no and there's nothing you can do about it. In this episode, I share with you what it actually takes to get those people moving anyway ... without authority.

What is Without Authority?

This podcast is about getting things done through people who don’t report to you like other teams, peers, your boss or customers. It’s for leaders in B2B software and SaaS who need a yes they can’t demand.

Adam Verity: Hi, my name is Adam
Verity, and I'm the creator of

the Without Authority system.

And this podcast is for B2B
software and SaaS leaders.

If you are a software leader, then
you know that there is a gap between

the results that you're accountable
for, and the amount of authority you

are given to accomplish these results.

Let me explain.

So you already have authority over people
who report to you, but no matter what's

your title, VP, director, manager, and
no matter which function you work in,

engineering, product, customer success,
sales, pre-sales, what have you There

are people who you need and require their
assistance and help and collaboration

for you to accomplish what's assigned to
you, the results you're accountable for.

This is the without authority gap.

It's the gap between the mandate and
the amount of authority over other

departments you are given that you
need their help for you to accomplish

the results you are tasked with.

Because you don't have authority over
other departments, other peers, leaders,

managers, directors then there should be a
way for you to close this gap if you want

to succeed tremendously in your career.

This is what we call the
without authority gap.

And I noticed this gap way back in
nineteen ninety-nine when I was a junior

software engineer, fresh grad out to
the world, and I was doing my thing,

and I noticed that the bigger work that
happens in a company is the work that

happens between teams and departments.

And those who accomplish bigger and
move up faster are those people who

can create agreement with others and
can get others, other departments,

other leaders to help them with
their mission, that leader's mission.

And I was watching that closely as a
software engineer way back then, and

I observed three types of leaders.

The first group are what I
call the logical leaders.

Those people in any meeting, in
most conversations, they tended

to use logic to argue their case.

So they would present their case.

They will argue using logic and
data and quote, unquote, "facts."

And when they get some objections thrown
towards them, they argue some more.

They use more logic,
more slides, maybe facts.

And once they are not able to resolve a
situation, what they do is they escalate

to the higher levels, or they wait until
one day they get the authority they need

to accomplish what they have in mind.

The second group is a group of leaders
who use charm and charisma to also

argue their case, to present and
argue that they are right and what

they're saying is valuable to their
team and other teams in the company.

And also, when they get some
heat back, some objections, some

pushbacks, they argue some more, but
this time they resolve to facts and

data with the charm, the charisma.

And of course, when they can't
get what they want, they escalate

just like logical leaders.

Both these two groups I noticed treated
other people and treated conversations

as fights that they need to win.

They operated from this belief that people
in other teams, in other groups, they are

someone to overcome their objections, to
quote-unquote handle their objections.

And of course, they did that with
negotiating their position and

negotiating concessions and pushing
back, and it was always a friction.

But I then noticed a third group of
leaders , and those are the minority,

even till this very day this group
of people, they do not argue.

They do not push back.

They do not escalate.

But they also do not wait
for things to happen.

They get things done by building
agreement and bridges with

other groups and teams easily.

Whether they are working one-on-one
with someone or one-on-many or

groups, they know how to design
and architect agreements with

others so they can get a yes from
everyone, a yes that serves everyone.

Now, I'm not talking about
a win-win negotiation.

I do not believe in win-win negotiation.

This is a myth, but this is
an episode for some other day.

When you can design agreements like
these leaders do with everyone, you

get to a position where everyone is
happy to work together towards one

shared goal that serves everyone.

And there's always a time and a place to
build shared definition of success between

teams and shared destination as well.

So I wanted so badly to be like this
third group of leaders, be it managers,

directors, or VPs, or even chief officers.

And I did go and I talked to a lot of
them, and I asked them what to do to

become like them, because I was not the
type of person who was just n- naturally

born as a persuasive or influential
person, or even I knew how to negotiate.

I actually was a software engineer,
the geek type who loved to talk to

computers more than people back then.

So I asked and I interviewed
many of these leaders, who I

call the agreement designers.

And they gave me a generic advice as "Go
and read about communication and influence

and persuasion and negotiations."

And, I did.

I actually read hundreds of books, and
I attended so many virtual as well as

in-person trainings, seminars and courses.

And I did that for a good
five years, but I got nowhere.

I found myself, I'm arguing using
logic more and more, or charisma and

charm, just like the first two groups.

And I'm arguing and I'm defending my
position and negotiating my position

and concessions, just like the first
two groups I did not want to be like.

Now, the reason I'm saying that not
because I want to throw stones at

training programs in negotiation,
persuasion, influence, et cetera.

No.

But they did not work for me because
I, and so many other people, we do

not deal well with preset templates.

When someone says, " in a given situation,
say A first, B second, C third, and so

forth," our brain is not wired this way
because once we go through the steps

and we find that the other person is not
responding, we don't know what to do.

So the whole thing is a hit and miss.

Sometimes the techniques and
strategies and skill that we learn

from the traditional influence
training programs and books, sometimes

they work, sometimes they don't.

Depends on the context of the
conversation, depends on your

personality, whether whatever you've
been taught work for you, and depends

on the other people in the room.

Plus, most of negotiation and training
and influence and persuasion, so on,

till this very day, they take into
consideration one-on-one conversations

mostly, but not one-on-many or
many-on-many in big boardrooms.

So I tried my best.

I really did.

I applied.

I made mistakes.

I'd correct it, but I got nowhere Until
I got to the level I thought to myself,

what if I had to be born this way?

I know I'm not natural at it,
but is it something I can learn?

And at that time, I had this
interest ignited inside me, about

people's personalities and the
psychology of people personalities.

So I started learning about that from
psychologists, social psychologists, and

so many other disciplines that go deep in
personality psychology, to be specific.

And one discipline led to another,
and I found myself studying a group

of psychologists who focus on helping
people change their perspective about

something, about an event, about a belief,
about a person, by managing people's

resistance and using that resistance
to help people change their lens on

things, their perspective of things.

And I was fascinated by their
work, and I went really deep

for a good three or four years.

And the more I learned in that
discipline, the more I realized that

all they're doing are four main things.

First, when they want to change someone's
perspective to build agreement with

them, they first have to read the
room, as in read the person in front

of you or the many people in a room.

When I say read the room, I mean
read what's important to them.

What do they value in the conversation?

What are their fears about the stuff
that are mentioned in a conversation?

What are their pet peeves?

What are their aspirations?

What they are looking for?

What will make them look good?

What are they avoiding that would
hurt their reputation, and so on?

Read the room.

You've got to know the person
in front of you before and while

having the conversation, and this
requires a lot of dynamic skills.

The second thing they are doing is
they are always handling conflict

and tension with people brilliantly.

At any moment, they can turn conflict
and tension very rapidly to become

cooperation and cooling down the
entire temperature of the room or the

conversation if you're having one-on-one.

And the third skill is to change
someone's perspective after

they lower the temperature.

To change their perspective, the lens
the other person or the entire room is

using to look at a problem, an issue,
or even a goal And the fourth thing

that they're doing, the fourth skill
is once you get to an agreement, how

to, can you get this agreement to hold?

How to avoid reversals after one day, one
week, one month, change of minds, how to

minimize that so a commitment can hold.

And it hits me.

I was like, this was my aha moment when I
realized that, first of all, I don't have

to be a natural about this, a naturally
born persuasive, influential person.

I can learn this thing.

And I also realized this
is not manipulation.

This is a group of scientists.

They have dedicated their lives to
this thing, to understand how to work

with people to get into agreement.

With manipulation, and that's another
discipline of, and group of people

who study, which I do not advocate.

With manipulation, you are hiding
facts from people to change their

perspective, or you're flat out lying
to them, changing the facts completely.

And the third thing I realized also
is that although I was an introverted

person, I'm still an introverted person,
but although I was an introverted,

logical, analytical, shy person, I
realized that I don't need the personality

for it because there is apparently
a system, and those people have been

using the system in psychology, in
therapy, albeit, but there is a way.

So I got obsessed about this and
fascinated, and I started translating

that system from therapy settings,
one-on-one therapy, to business settings,

especially in boardrooms . And I started
applying these things I'm learning, and

gradually, I started having a framework
of what are the things I need to do to

move between those four major skills.

Remember, reading the room or reading
the person, handling the conflict, if

you have any conflict with them or they
have tension with you, changing their

lens and perspective once they are ready
for it, and making commitments hold.

How can I create a system that tells
me when to do what in a conversation?

Because I personally hate scripts.

So I wanted a way for me at the time, and
now for you, to navigate a conversation

freely, moving between reading people,
knowing what matters to them, what's

important to them about any conversation,
handling any conflict and tension, if

any, calming and cooling the temperature
down of the room, and once that happens,

changing people's lenses and perspectives
to look at things like you do look at

them, from your point of view, as well
as understand their point of view and

integrate it within the conversation.

And once you get a commitment from them,
a yes, an agreement, how to make it hold.

I started working on this system,
and it took me a long time because

I applied it in sales, pre-sales,
leadership, operations, and so on.

I led teams as a director, as a manager,
and finally as a chief operating officer

in a startup that we prepared, and we
sold for twenty-five million dollars.

The pattern is that you always need
other people who you do not have

any authority over to work with you
closely this quarter, next quarter,

and next fiscal years to help you
accomplish your OKRs, your goals,

and whatever you are accountable for.

This is the gap, the
without authority gap.

And I want for you to become the
kind of leader that only knows how

to build such agreements, bring
people together to help you succeed,

but also enable other leaders.

Teach them how to do that
because of this podcast.

That's my mission, and that's my goal from
recording these episodes moving forward.

All right.

If you want to understand where this
gap is for you, what are the skills

that you're great at, and what are the
skills that you can improve right away,

whether reading the room or handling
conflict and tension or helping people

change their perspective and lens or
securing commitments and make them

hold you can go to withoutauthority.com

and complete the scorecard there.

It takes about eight minutes to get
the full report plus a detailed guide

customized based on your results that will
guide you through the action steps and

the 90 days plan toward closing that gap.

So if you haven't already,
it's withoutauthority.com.

All right.

I am Adam Verity, and this
is it for today's episode.

Talk to you next time.