After having harvested ‘low hanging fruits’ in early stages of Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM), it becomes increasingly difficult to keep up with large benefit realizations in later stages. The focus on the traditional EAM players (IT unit, architects, enterprise management) should be widened to ‘that other 90 % of the enterprise’ that are not directly related to the IT function. In order to create impact beyond IT, it appears necessary to complement the enforcement-centric view (i.e., enhancing EAM governance) by an influence-centric view (i.e., improving the EAM influence on local stakeholder decisions). Our research has shown that local stakeholders’ acceptance of restricted design freedom depends on certain preconditions: (1) Actors need to be convinced that their social status will be raising if they comply with EAM measures – and vice versa. (2) Actors need to understand that they can be more efficient if they comply with EAM measures – and vice versa. (3) Actors need to perceive EAM as something that is strategically important for the organization. (4) Actors need to perceive EAM deployment as transparent, useful, and professional. In this talk, we will elaborate on the necessity, justificatory foundations, and supporting artifacts to create supportive conditions for ‘Architectural Thinking’, the influence-based complement of governance-based EAM.