From Insight to Influence- Part 1

Class 55 at UC Davis

By: Jeremy Wagner, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer, County of San Mateo

I came into this seminar with a bias. When I heard the word influence, I didn’t think of leadership—I thought of manipulation. I thought of modern “influencers,” and the carefully constructed strategies used to shape consumer behavior: likability, appeals to authority, artificial scarcity, even the subtle creation of obligation. Our first assigned reading laid these tactics out plainly, showing how sales professionals and others use them to secure, “compliance.” I remember thinking,“is this really what I’m here to learn?” I dislike being manipulated, and the prospect of using these techniques never sat well with me.

That question stayed with me as Class 55 gathered at the Native American Contemplative Garden at University of California, Davis. With abundant sunshine and a month of distance behind us, we returned to the familiar rhythm of beginning with a pause. We were asked to consider what we had brought with us and what we were willing to set aside. For the next five days, we chose to be fully present. Our focus sounded simple: understanding influence and using it in a way that is credible and authentic. For me, it didn’t feel simple at all.

A Profound Introduction to UC Davis

Dr. Ashley Stokes opened the seminar with a perspective shaped by a career that has taken her across the country and around the world. Her path, as she described it, was anything but linear. “Never discount the value of a winding journey,” she said. That message resonated. I didn’t come from a traditional agricultural background, and her career reinforced something I’ve come to appreciate over time: there isn’t a single path into leadership.

What stayed with me more was her emphasis on trust. She framed it as the foundation for any lasting impact. At the time, I didn’t fully connect that idea to my discomfort with influence. But it planted a seed. If influence can be rooted in trust, then it may be something fundamentally different from the kind of manipulation I had been reacting to. She left us with a simple challenge that reflected this seminar’s posture: are we thermometers, reading the room, or thermostats, shaping it?

Authority, Leadership, and the Tension Between Them

Our first deep dive with Prof. Marc Manashil disrupted the rhythm of a typical lecture. Instead of beginning with content, he turned the question back on us: What comes next? The pause that followed was uncomfortable. Without an agenda or introduction, it wasn’t immediately clear how to respond, or even what authority he had in that moment. That uncertainty was the point.

As we worked through it, he drew a distinction that stayed with me: much of what we expect from leaders—setting direction, establishing credibility, structuring a conversation—are actually expressions of authority. Leadership, in his view, is something different. It is practice, rather than a position that is  granted. That distinction forced me to look more closely at my own role.

In a local government setting, much of my responsibility is tied to preserving systems that already exist. The State’s pest prevention framework I work within has been in place for over a century. A major part of my job is to maintain its integrity, which means I operate from a place of authority frequently. There are many moments when I push for change, challenge assumptions, or adapt to new risks. But those moments exist alongside a larger reality: much of my work is designed to hold the line.

Dr. Manashil’s framing didn’t suggest that was wrong; some things should be preserved. The question is whether we are intentional about where we maintain stability, and where we are willing to let go of what no longer works. He also introduced the idea of adaptive challenges: problems without clear solutions, where technical expertise alone falls short. Those are the moments where leadership becomes necessary, and where influence over an outcome can’t be reduced simply to authority or control.

Dr. Manashil’s ideas struck me differently than the reading had. If influence isn’t just a set of techniques, and it isn’t something granted by a title, then it depends on something less concrete. It requires judgment: knowing when to push and when to hold back. It requires restraint: recognizing that just because you can enforce something doesn’t mean it’s the most effective path. And it requires tolerance for ambiguity, especially in situations where there isn’t a clear solution and the outcome isn’t fully in your control.

Morgan Campbell, director of regulatory affairs for Westside Water Authority, reflected on the impact of this seminar for her: “Water policy issues impacting agriculture are often approached as a technical problem where historically proven solutions from the 1960s and 1970s, like engineered canals, reservoirs, and irrigation systems, can reliably deliver expected results today. This seminar made it clear to me that securing an affordable and reliable water supply for agriculture is fundamentally an adaptive challenge, which will require leaders to leverage their credibility and influence to address root causes and make meaningful changes in values, priorities, and behaviors to forge a pathway forward that technical solutions alone cannot.”

A Different Kind of Pause

Between lectures, the UC Davis Ecological Garden and student farm offered a moment of refuge and respite. Dr. Colin Dixon and his team brought us a dose of wellness, where we observed and took in the natural beauty surrounding us. The exercise of finding “friends” and “strangers” through plants we recognized and those that were unfamiliar—gently asked us to be present. It reminded us that meaningful reflection requires a change of pace or a shift in environment.

Influence in Practice

With the scent of fresh herbs still lingering from the garden, Dr. Amanda Crump brought us back to the question I had been quietly wrestling with since the seminar began: what does it actually mean to influence someone? Instead of offering a formula, she turned the lens on us. We mapped the approaches we each instinctively rely on, and the ones we tend to avoid.

As the discussion unfolded, I began to understand that my discomfort was not really about the techniques themselves. It was about trust: specifically, whether I trusted my own motivations in using them. In conversations with classmates, my biases started to unravel. Many described using these same approaches: “cozying up,” asking questions, reasoning, drawing on authority; all without hesitation or any sense of duplicity. They weren’t intentionally manipulating people; they were communicating, advocating, and building alignment in ways that felt natural. The difference wasn’t the tool; it was the intent behind it.

That realization landed harder than I expected. I had been so focused on scrutinizing influence that I hadn’t fully considered what it requires at a more basic level: a degree of trust in your own judgment and purpose. If your intent is grounded in care, clarity, and a willingness to listen, then influence is not inherently manipulative. Instead, it becomes an extension of how you show up.

Working in groups, we expressed through artwork how influence is perceived across gender. The conversation that followed was thoughtful and uncomfortable, surfacing assumptions that often go unspoken, and showing the ways culture and experience shape who is heard and how.

From Reflection to Engagement

We carried these lessons into real-world community settings in Sacramento. At Mercy Pedalers, cyclists reach out with one simple question: “Do you want a cup of coffee?” Sister Libby’s work centers on meeting people where they are, offering dignity, basic necessities, and a list of resources to individuals experiencing homelessness. The structure is intentionally loose; what holds it together is safety, consistency, and a genuine sense of care.

At Loaves and Fishes, the principle of radical hospitality defines the environment. Everyone who enters is treated as a guest, and the space reflects a commitment to presence and respect over immediate outcomes.

At Quinn Cottages, we experienced the intention of shared spaces in a mini-neighborhood. Cynthia Hunt, whose own life shaped her approach, emphasized that consistent engagement over time is what creates real change. Presence, not policy, often carries the message.

The ideas we explored at UC Davis came into sharper focus through these experiences—through people who were quietly applying influence in ways that created meaningful impact in their communities. By the end of these visits, the seminar question had shifted. It was no longer whether I was comfortable with influence as a concept. It was whether I was willing to trust myself enough to practice it deliberately, and be accountable for how I use it.

That perspective carried into an evening that felt, in many ways, like a bridge between this seminar’s reflections and what comes next. We gathered for dinner in Sacramento and spent time with Mike Campbell, a Fellow of CALP Class 3 and recipient of the 2024 CALF Lifetime Achievement Award. His career spans decades of leadership across agriculture, higher education, and community service, from farming in the Sacramento Delta to serving as a White House Fellow, to his lasting contributions to UC Davis, UC Merced, and the Delta region.

For me, the moment was personal. Mike was the one who first welcomed me at a prospective applicant event he hosted, an experience that influenced my own decision to apply to Class 55. His sincerity and warmth left a lasting impression then, and it was meaningful to reconnect, hear more of his story, and learn from his insightful advice.

As the evening unfolded, I found myself returning to a thought that has been present, quietly, throughout the program. With less than a year remaining, there is a growing awareness that this immersive, formative experience will eventually come to a close. It carries a sense of anticipation, but also a degree of wistfulness.

Mike’s example offers a different way to hold that tension. His continued engagement with the program, and his decades of service beyond it, suggested that commencement is not an endpoint, but a continuation. What I had begun to think of as something I would eventually have to let go of may instead evolve into something different, but no less meaningful.

Our dinner with Mike Campbell (3) showed us that influence is not confined to a single setting or moment. It is sustained over time, shaped by relationships, and carried forward in ways that extend well beyond any one event- or program- itself.

From here, the next phase awaited: translating these lessons into a context where policy, power, and competing priorities intersect: the State Capitol.

Class 55 extends its sincere appreciation to the educational team for the intentional design and execution of this seminar. The experience reflected a deep investment in both the program’s continued evolution and in our growth as leaders.

We are grateful to the faculty and speakers who challenged us to examine influence, credibility, and leadership more critically, including those at University of California, Davis. Your willingness to engage thoughtfully and push our thinking made this experience meaningful and lasting.

We also extend our thanks to the community organizations that welcomed us into their spaces, including Mercy Pedalers, Loaves and Fishes, and Quinn Cottages. Your openness grounded this seminar in lived experience and offered a powerful example of what sustained, values-driven influence looks like in practice.