Going beyond the data: how to influence and

persuade for positive impact

SPEAKER
Dr Rob Yeung

Dr Rob Yeung 00:00

Hello, my name is Dr. Rob Yeung and welcome to this session on going beyond the data. I'll be talking
about how to influence and persuade for positive impact. So allow me to introduce myself. I'm a
chartered psychologist and an associate fellow of the British Psychological Society. I work as a
management consultant and a performance coach. I help leaders and their teams and also do some
one-to-one coaching, essentially helping leaders to get more out of their teams and achieve their goals.
But in practice we work on topics such as emotional intelligence, influence and persuasion, and
confidence. If you use social media, you can find me and comment on this session on Twitter, LinkedIn,
Facebook and the website. You can also follow my musings every month in ACCA's flagship magazine,
AB. ACCA has also commissioned a lot of videos from me, which you can find on YouTube if you
search for me, Rob Yeung.

Dr Rob Yeung 01:02

So onto today's topic. In terms of an agenda, I'd like to start by making the business case. Why do we
need to influence and persuade people rather than just using data? Then I'll talk a little bit at a high
level about influence before going into 12 individual influencing tactics, which will seem a bit theoretical
perhaps, but then towards the end, I'll talk about how you can apply influence in your workplace before
taking some questions from you. I'll aim to speak for about 40 minutes.

Dr Rob Yeung 01:38

Let's start by thinking about the need for influencing tactics. Why is it important to go beyond the data?
Well, one of the most interesting jobs that I get to do as a psychologist working in business is
something called management assessment. I interview and use psychometric tests to assess
candidates on behalf of large organisations. Quite often, these are for FD and CFO roles. For example,
I recently worked with a technology organisation with around $250m worth of revenues or turnover. And
they wanted a CFO who could manage a very complex business. They had people in China, in the
Middle East, in Europe and North America. The new CFO coming in needed to be able to work across
these culturally very diverse parts of the world. The CFO would also have to manage some very
experienced financial staff, who I was told were a little bit difficult to manage. They were very
experienced, they had a great deal of technical knowledge, but they could not be fired from the
organisation for at least a year or two. So the client organisation went out, the headhunter found them
many candidates and I assessed nine of them. Seven of the candidates we rejected for not having
these complex, sophisticated, nuanced influencing skills that were required. Only two out of the nine
candidates had both the technical and the interpersonal skills needed to be a top-level CFO.

-1-
Dr Rob Yeung 03:21
But it's not just me that has this experience. Understand that being good only at the numbers could get
you sidelined. The Wall Street Journal recently explained why you don't need to be an accountant to be
a CFO, because, increasingly, a CFO can just be a strategic, commercial person who is good at
communicating with stakeholders. And then they can hire someone as a lower-level head of finance to
do the accounting, the risk management and compliance. So that's a danger for accountants. And
recognise that people skills are important at the highest level. This is a thought leadership piece written
by EY – Ernst & Young. They asked, how will soft skills give CFOs a sharper edge? I apologise, the
text at the bottom is a little bit small, but effectively it says that CFO candidates need to have better
people skills if they want to succeed.

Dr Rob Yeung 04:21

So what is influence? Well let's think about the range of targets that you might need to influence. Just a
little bit of terminology: the person doing the influencing is called an agent; and we want to influence
targets, so that could be an individual or perhaps a group of individuals. These could be internal to the
organisation. It could be your peers, your subordinates if you're a manager and you have reports, your
boss, your line manager or your internal customers. These could be external, such as clients, suppliers,
shareholders, government officials, trade unions you have to negotiate with or other sorts of partners in
business.

Dr Rob Yeung 05:08

So the data supports at least 12 different influencing tactics. And I'll go through these in detail. It will
seem like quite a lot of material, but it will make sense by the end. These 12 tactics cluster into three
broad approaches. The first broad approach is rational, which is about using facts, numbers, evidence,
proof, business analyses, calculating margins and ratios, thinking about benefits for the organisation as
well as perhaps the individual. And this is what you are probably most familiar with as a finance
professional. Then there are the hard influencing tactics, which are about force, authority, dominance,
power, determination, strength of will to compel people to do what you want them to do. Then there are
the so-called soft influencing tactics, which are about listening, positive emotion, humour, warmth,
human empathy, compassion, friendship and inspiration.

Dr Rob Yeung 06:19

But what the data shows is that certain influencing tactics, effectively the so-called soft influencing
tactics, tend to get more buy-in from people and therefore better results. Why might this be? Well, if you
think about it, the rational influencing tactics are about winning over people's head rather than their
heart. But that isn't always enough. Imagine that some analysis is done within your organisation. And
it's decided that, actually, we need to make 30% job cuts within your department or your business unit
and you have been identified for redundancy in three months' time. Would you just look at the analysis
and go, 'Yes, I understand fully. I will work really hard and passionately for the next three months to
train my successors. And then I'll just leave the organisation quietly.' No, you'd probably be angry, you
might want to negotiate a better deal, because the numbers alone don't always win people over.
Whereas the hard tactics, when someone says to you, 'Do this! Shut up and do it.' Again, people
become passive aggressive or they resist quite explicitly. So it's using the softer tactics, when you feel

-2-
engaged, when your heart is won over as well as your head. But we'll come to some data talking about
this shortly. As I said, I did not invent this model of the 12 influencing tactics. It comes from business
school, university and employer research. And if you are interested in any of the primary research, then
you could start by looking at these three papers.

Dr Rob Yeung 08:02

Let's look at these 12 individual tactics. It will seem a little bit theoretical, but I will bring it all together
towards the end. The first tactic is called arguing from fact. This is defined as using logic, numbers and
factual evidence to show that a request or proposal is both feasible and relevant. And generally, the
way that we measure influencing tactics is that we don't ask you, the agent, the person doing the
influencing, whether you think you do this or not. We ask the people around you for feedback on
whether they see you using this tactic. So that's why I ask the question at the top – to what extent do
other people see you displaying certain behaviours, such as using data, to explain why a request or
proposed change matters, describing the costs and benefits of the request or proposal, or
communicating about the practicalities of implementation? Arguing from fact is probably the influencing
tactic that you are most familiar with. It's a rational tactic, using logic, analysis, margins and so on to
figure out what the business should or shouldn't do. But, again, it wins over only people's head, not
their heart. That's why we use the other tactics in order to be a rounded business professional.

Dr Rob Yeung 09:23

The second tactic is called appealing to personal gain. This is defined as explaining how your request
or proposal would benefit the target personally, such as building their personal profile or furthering their
career. To what extent do other people see you explaining to the target you're trying to influence how
your proposed task or activity would benefit their career, explaining how the proposed activity would
help the target to achieve some other personal objective? And describing benefits to be gained from
getting involved? For example, acquiring new skills or meeting influential people. Whereas influencing,
the first tactic, arguing from fact, is about numbers and the benefits to a team or organisation, this is
saying to an individual or group of individuals, actually, this could benefit you. You might pick up new
skills, you might acquire new knowledge as a result of working on this project, or you'll get exposure to
senior management, they'll know who you are and might one day promote you. So this is a much more
personal form of benefit that you point out to people.

Dr Rob Yeung 10:46

A third tactic is called consulting, which is defined as asking a target person to suggest improvements
or otherwise get involved with a proposed change. To what extent do others around you see you as
inviting the target to express concerns about the proposed activity or change? Encouraging the target
or group of targets to come up with ideas, suggestions or amendments, and encouraging the target to
identify potential obstacles and/or actions that might affect the proposed change? Now, you've probably
experienced consulting or maybe a lack of consultation. Someone might say to you, 'Do this. I just need
you to do this, I don't have the time to explain.' That's a lack of consultation. And you might be thinking,
'Why am I doing this? Why wasn't I asked my opinion?' And you probably didn't like it. But when you
were asked for your opinion, when someone asked you, 'How could we make this better?', when you
had input, when you had a say, when you got to change the way that the project was done, then you no
doubt felt much more involved and engaged, and willing to work much harder on the project.

-3-
Dr Rob Yeung 12:05
A fourth tactic is inspiring, which is appealing to a target's values and ideals with the aim of provoking
positive emotions and commitment to a proposal. We'd measure this by asking other people to what
extent you engage in these behaviours, using words and behaviour that makes a proposed activity or
change seem exciting and/or worthwhile, presenting a rousing vision of what the proposed activity or
change could achieve. Or mentioning values and ideals when referring to the proposal or request. So
this is what truly exceptional leaders do. They don't just say, 'Do this, because it will increase our
margins by 3.2% and our turnover by 82% within a four-year period.' Because that's not an exciting
thing to do. Sometimes it's using words and emotion that actually gets people to feel really engaged.
And sometimes the things that we want people to do might not have a clear cost-benefit that pays off
within a year or two. For example, the arguments about mitigating against climate change, they don't
pay off this quarter or this year. It might be about leaving a legacy for our children or our children's
children, making sure that they still have blue-green seas and oxygen and a planet that's worth living
on. Those aren't rational arguments, but really, truly inspirational leaders can make those arguments.

Dr Rob Yeung 13:46

Another tactic is called collaborating. This is offering to provide practical assistance or useful resources
if the target agrees to your request or proposed change. Do other people see you as offering to help
with a task or project that you want the target to carry out? Offering to supply resources? These
resources might be physical (you actually getting involved), financial (money), emotional or political
(you putting your name behind something and your reputation on the line in order to further the task or
project). Are you providing guidance, instruction or role modelling relating to the task or project? So
you're not just saying, 'This project, I need YOU to do it.' You're saying, 'This project is sufficiently
important that I will get personally involved. I will actually help you with some of the work. I will attend
meetings or I'll talk you through it at points along the way. I will change my behaviour to show how
important this is to me and not just to you.'

Dr Rob Yeung 14:58

Then ingratiating is about using praise and/or flattery, either before or during an attempt to persuade
the target to agree to a request or proposal. I say before or during, because if I suddenly come up to
you and say, 'I think you are an intelligent, sophisticated person. By the way, could you do this project
for me that needs five hours of work?', then that's really transparent, you'll see through me. People who
are good at using ingratiating build the relationship days or months beforehand, building up that warmth
and praising that person. Do other people see you saying that the target has special skills or expertise
that is necessary for carrying out the request or proposal? To what extent do you praise the target's
past performance or achievements? Or say that the target has qualifications or desirable traits or
characteristics that would help to carry out a task or activity?

Dr Rob Yeung 16:05

Now, I work with a lot of business professionals who are very rational and logical in their approach:
lawyers, bankers, accountants, actuaries, even scientists. And many of them say, 'I don't like this, I like
to make a rational argument.' But the truth is that this tactic works and it's possible to do it without doing
so insincerely. If I think about some of the managers that I used to work for, if I wanted to win them

-4-
over, there were genuine strengths that I could praise about them. Genuine weaknesses as well. For
example, one business owner I worked for, he could be quite aggressive in meetings, quite intimidating.
He would shout at people and say, 'This is my business, this is the way we're doing things!' But he had
some great strengths. When he was presenting to clients, he was so charismatic, so entertaining, so
able to hold a room and sell to clients. So if I wanted to flatter him, I could genuinely praise him about
the way that he presented, that he was such an engaging public speaker. Another manager that I
worked for, again, several weaknesses I could point out. But I was so grateful to him for the amount of
responsibility he gave me, the autonomy, the power to make decisions about even quite large projects
at a very young age (I was in my 20s at the time). So you can flatter people, you can praise the genuine
strengths that you see in people. You don't have to be insincere.

Dr Rob Yeung 17:38

Another tactic is called appealing to friendship, which is about asking the target to agree to a request
or proposal out of friendship, camaraderie, a sense of attachment or sentiment. To what extent do other
people see you as asking for support because of your bond or friendship with a target? Asking the
target for help as a personal favour or referring to your shared history as a reason for agreeing with a
request or proposal? Quite often, when you are asking someone that you consider a friend in the
workplace for a favour, you don't need to mention the friendship. But when you are making a significant
request, then that's when you might say, 'I really value your friendship. I'm really sorry, but you know,
you're the only person I can really depend on for this favour. Please will you help in this project?'

Dr Rob Yeung 18:36

Another influencing tactic is called exchanging. And this is offering to trade support or resources if a
target agrees to your request or supports your proposal. To what extent do other people see you as
promising some specific action in return for the target's help with a proposed task or activity? Seeking
to make a deal, an arrangement or a formal written contract in order to further your request or
proposal? Or offering the target assistance in the future in return for the target's support right now? This
one is about straightforward negotiating, it's fairly straightforward to understand as well. 'I will give you
this if you do this for me in return.' So this could be an informal spoken agreement, it could be
something that we establish in some emails or even in some written, legally binding contract that we
are exchanging certain products or services or help.

Dr Rob Yeung 19:46

Another one is relying on rules. This is defined as arguing that your request or proposal is consistent
with either past policies or established ways of working. Do other people see you as explaining how
your request or proposal is consistent with precedent, tradition or long-held practice? Relating your
request or proposal to prior agreements or contracts? And referring to a charter, bylaws, policy manual
regulations or other written documents? Often people don't like having rules imposed on them. People
will talk about it and roll their eyes and say, 'Oh, that's bureaucracy, red tape.' 'It's health and safety,'
they will say with a sneer. But sometimes, in many industries, the rules are there to protect people. Just
think about the airline industry, there are rules that pilots and cabin crew shouldn't get drunk before
flying an aeroplane. Do you want a pilot downing a bottle of wine before getting on a plane? In a
surgical theatre, there are rules as to what surgeons can and can't do, rules about how they should
communicate and articulate what they're doing in order to protect patients' lives.

-5-
Dr Rob Yeung 21:07
Sometimes these are formal rules, but then sometimes these are informal rules. For example, I worked
for an American management consultancy years ago called the Boston Consulting Group. And it was
just established, whether you were presenting something to clients or just making a suggestion to a
colleague, that you would write a PowerPoint slide deck, never a Word document. It wasn't written
down anywhere, it was just accepted practice worldwide across a consultancy, an informal rule.

Dr Rob Yeung 21:41

Coming towards the end, another tactic is called pressurising. This is defined as making use of
demands, persistent reminders or even threats to enforce the target's compliance with your request.
Now, the reason we ask whether other people see you do this is that, quite often, we see a major
disconnect between the responses of managers and their reports. When asked, managers quite often
say, 'I don't do this. I don't make demands, I don't threaten people.' But then when we ask their direct
reports, they say, 'Yes, we see our manager making demands and actually being intimidating and
threatening to us.' So that's why it's really important to get feedback from people, because we may
inadvertently come across as threatening or intimidating sometimes. This is defined as using
commands, orders, warnings or other firm words and behaviour to obtain a target's obedience.
Checking up frequently on a target to see if the request has been carried out. 'Have you done it yet?
Why haven't you done it? When will you do it? Do it, please. I want to see the results at the end of
every day.' Micromanaging people. Or referring to your authority, power status or value. I've seen many
business owners say, 'This is MY business. I am the chairman. This is the way it will be.' Not a rational
argument, just saying, 'This is the way that I want it to be because I am important.'

Dr Rob Yeung 23:19

Coalition building is about seeking the aid of others in an attempt to persuade the target to agree to
your request or proposal. To what extent do other people see as you mentioning to a target the names
of other stakeholders who also agree with your request or proposal? Asking others to speak to the
target with a view to winning over the target? Or involving other stakeholders who are supportive of
your request or proposal? Imagine that I'm trying to influence someone over here, the marketing
director, that's my target. I make a proposal, but the marketing director says no. So then I might try and
build a coalition, I might speak to the sales director. Maybe the sales director is a friend of mine or we
exchange something, come to some agreement, or I just persuade the sales director that it's a good
idea. Then I'd get the sales director to speak to the marketing director. Or maybe I'd get other people to
build a larger and larger coalition of support for my proposal. It takes time, but it can be successful.

Dr Rob Yeung 24:31

Now we come to the final one, which is called boosting the organisation. This is about explaining how
your request or proposal would benefit the organisation. To what extent do other people see and hear
you using these sorts of tactics, explaining to a target how your request or proposal would bolster
tangible organisational outcomes such as growth or profit or margins? But then also mentioning less
tangible benefits, such as to our organisational reputation, our competitiveness, the fact that we are
maybe a top-20 firm in our sector but we want to be a top-10 firm in 10 years' time? Describing how the

-6-
proposed activity or project might impact positively on the organisation and/or its stakeholders, the
community, the planet and so on?

Dr Rob Yeung 25:29

So these are the 12 tactics.

Dr Rob Yeung 25:32

The final section is about thinking about how you can apply influence in your workplace. Remember
that the tactics fall into three broad groups. Here we have the 12 tactics. Consider that you likely find
the rational tactics easiest – these three which are coloured mid-blue. Arguing from fact is about
business analysis, financial analysis, looking at economic data. Appealing to personal gain is less
tangible, but it's still saying to people, this is how you benefit from something. And boosting the
organisation is perhaps talking about those less tangible benefits to the wider organisation, that we will
crush our competition, that we will become a top 10 firm that, you know, we want to cross that line from
being a £1m business to being a £10m business or whatever it might be.

Dr Rob Yeung 26:28

These green-coloured soft tactics are the hardest, the most difficult to use, but have the greatest
potential according to the data, and I'll come to some of the data shortly. Consulting, listening, inspiring,
engaging people's emotions, so that they feel excited and enthusiastic about something, passionate
about what you're proposing. Collaborating, working together, praising and ingratiating people or
appealing to friendship. These are things that business professionals sometimes think they don't want
to do. But the data shows this is how you become a successful leader. And understand that the hard
tactics are in some ways easy to use if you have the power, but are generally less effective than the
soft tactics – again, according to the data. When we exchange something, if it's not written in the
contract, people can try to squirm out of it. When we rely on rules, people don't like bureaucracy and
red tape. When people say, 'I'm pressurising you. Do it, because I'm your boss,' that doesn't get you
feeling engaged and empowered and wanting to work your best. Coalition building is also about
applying pressure, because it's other people pressurising the target or group of targets.

Dr Rob Yeung 27:51

As I said, there's data behind this, so let me talk a little bit about the real consequences. There's the
research paper if you want to go into it. What these researchers did, which I really find interesting, is
they went into a real organisation, a financial services organisation, and they followed 41 senior
individuals, so vice-presidents. They followed the vice-presidents and their direct reports, who are
called directors within the business. On the first day that the researchers went in, they got the direct
reports, the directors, to complete questionnaires on the extent to which the senior individuals, the vice-
presidents, used these 12 influencing tactics. Then everyone was followed up for a 15-month period.
Then the researchers looked at levels of voluntary turnover, the extent to which the directors quit, and
they found that the vice-presidents who used the most pressurising had the highest voluntary turnover.
People did not like working for vice-presidents who used the pressurising tactic, whereas the vice-
presidents who used inspiring had the lowest voluntary turnover. The directors enjoyed working for
them and wanted to stay in these teams. And remember that these directors, they're not very junior-
level people. These are fairly senior business professionals. So we can't say that they are just junior,

-7-
inexperienced and therefore delicate and unable to work under pressurised conditions. Even senior
individuals don't like pressure.

Dr Rob Yeung 29:33

Another finding is that ingratiating works even in job interviews. When you are in a job interview being
interviewed, to what extent do you display these behaviours? Do you praise the interviewer's
organisation? Do you compliment the interviewer? Are you indicating your enthusiasm for working for
this particular organisation and discussing interests you share in common with the interviewer?
Remember that this isn't what I personally believe, this is what the data shows. So even though you
might think it's unfair that people use ingratiation, either in a job interview or in the workplace, it's not
right that people do it. But remember that the data shows that it is beneficial, and the data does not
care whether we think it's fair or not. The data shows that ingratiation works, not only in the workplace
when you're working for months and years with people, but even when you are in a one-off job
interview. Candidates who ingratiate get higher rankings and are therefore more likely to get offered the
job. So, remember, no matter your personal feelings about ingratiation, understand that the data shows
that it delivers results.

Dr Rob Yeung 31:05

There are also likely cultural or country-specific sensitivities. I don't want to go into the detail of this
piece of research, because it's not the detail that's important. This paper was called 'Getting Things
Done: Proactive Influence Tactics in Mexico and the United States'. The researchers looked at which of
the influencing tactics helped managers and leaders to be effective in the US vs. Mexico, just as two
sample countries. And they found that there were two tactics which were most endorsed, most
effective, in Mexico. Whereas it was an entirely different three tactics that got the best results in the
United States. The point I'm making isn't about the US vs Mexico, but really that there are going to be
worldwide differences in what's effective. So if you are in China, it's likely that you need to behave in a
certain way to be more or less effective. It will be different if you are in the UK, which is a different
culture. For example, I've done a fair amount of work in Germany and France. And there are slightly
different ways of working, even though they are all considered western European countries. So really,
the important thing to note is that, if you are working in one country, then things may be a certain way.
But when you move out of your country, when you go global, you really have to be careful about what is
appropriate and effective and what is considered definitely inappropriate. So listen, observe and ask for
advice from the people who are local to that country or culture.

Dr Rob Yeung 32:46

What we are doing really is, I'm not saying that any one of these influencing tactics is good or bad.
Sometimes there are times when we need to rely heavily on rules and bureaucracy. Sometimes there
are occasions when we need to use pressure because of difficult circumstances. For example, during
Covid and the lockdowns, there wasn't a lot of time at the beginning to persuade people and to engage
people. Literally, you know, businesses were going under, lives were being lost. So maybe I needed to
say as a manager, 'Do this, do this and we'll talk about it later on.' The point is that, in different
situations, we want to combine influencing tactics for best effect.

Dr Rob Yeung 33:37

-8-
Here we have the three categories and the 12 individual influencing tactics. Imagine different situations
where you might need to use different tactics. Some I've underlined and highlighted in yellow. Imagine
that we are in the oil and gas industry. There might be a lot of rules about what applies. Some legal
rules are there to make sure that we don't cause explosions and deaths, then different countries may
have different rules on emissions, for example, that we really need to pay attention to.

Dr Rob Yeung 34:12

When we're making a proposal, we might rely heavily on fact, we're making an argument about
spending hundreds of millions on a piece of infrastructure. And so we've calculated what the benefits
might be, the return on the investment, discounting cashflows and so on. But that's not necessarily
enough to get the best work out of people, for them to feel truly inspired and engaged about a project.
We might still need to consult them, to ask them, 'How do you think this project could go better? Is
there a way to improve the outcome? Is there something we should do more of or a little bit less of here
and there?' And then we might still try to inspire people and say that we are creating a better future,
that, by creating a larger organisation, there will be larger economies of scale, so therefore we will be
able to increase benefits or do something that will benefit the climate eventually.

Dr Rob Yeung 35:13

Consider also the relative level of your target or group of targets that you're influencing. Again, I'm not
saying that you should read the primary research, but it's there if you want to look at it. Don't just take
my word for it, you know, look at the primary research. What this group of researchers looked at was
the level of you vs your target audience. And what the researchers found was that when an agent is
more senior than a group of targets, generally the targets respond more to signals of warmth. So they
really appreciate those softer tactics, using human empathy, appealing to friendship, inspiring them,
encouraging them that you want to collaborate with them. Whereas when you the agent are less senior
than the targets that you're presenting to, the targets really respect signals of competence. They really
want to understand what the rational argument is. And this is where you really need to have your facts
sorted, making sure that you have documented your assumption, that you've tested your thinking and
are able to answer difficult questions about why your numbers say what they say and where they come
from. Ultimately, it's about working out the right combination of influencing tactics in each different
situation.

Dr Rob Yeung 36:47

If I were coaching you, I'd start by asking you, 'Who is this target or this group of targets? What do you
know about them?' And then try to figure out, from your knowledge of having worked with them in the
past, what generally makes this target say yes to requests or proposals, what generally makes the
target more likely to say no. So looking at these 12 influencing tactics, what might be useful and what
might be less useful. And most importantly, trying to assemble a combination of influencing tactics that
we think is likely to get the best result, even if it's more difficult to use. And that's really important,
because quite often we all have things that are our natural strengths, things that are familiar to us,
within our comfort zone. But we might realise that actually, with these stakeholders, I need to go
outside of my comfort zone. Even though I don't normally use this influencing tactic, I need to do this
and this. I need to build that coalition, perhaps, in order to win over this person, because this is a really
important argument. Think about the business case you make when you're trying to get a promotion.

-9-
Often it's not about numbers. You can't say, 'This is the value, the financial value, in dollars or euros or
yen that I have brought into the organisation.' Often you have to use other tactics to win people over.

Dr Rob Yeung 38:25

Some final thoughts before I take some questions. I hope I've made the point that influencing skills are
absolutely crucial for being a business professional. You cannot rely purely on appealing to facts and
numbers. Remember that senior finance professionals must have strong influencing skills, that CFOs
are being brought in without accounting backgrounds and other people are doing the lower-level
technical work. So when you are making that important request or pitching a proposal, really invest the
time, pause, reflect on the right combination of tactics to use. And consider that you may have to trade
comfort and what you like doing, what's familiar, versus effectiveness, that you may have to work hard
at building up these skills.

Dr Rob Yeung 39:19

Finally, again, remember that lack of influencing skills is a major reason I have rejected so many people
from finance director and CFO roles, unfortunately. Because they had the technical skills, but they
didn't have the skills to really win over stakeholders. So build those influencing and persuasion skills
now. Please do comment on social media, do let me know your thoughts and questions on Twitter,
LinkedIn, Facebook and the website. There are a couple of books I've written which might be more
relevant, 'How to Win' and 'How to Stand Out in the Middle'. But I'm going to finish now and take some
of your questions. Thank you in the meantime.

- 10 -