SECTION 1
The Problem: Why Are You Struggling to Influence People?
You can use tricks and manipulation to gain short-term compliance, but disconnected influence doesnāt earn you the commitment you need to achieve great things. Why? Because when youāre stuck in your here, you canāt get to their thereāand thatās where you need to be in order to persuade people effectively. In Section One, youāll discover the risks of disconnected influence and the four traps that cause you to fall into it. Then weāll share the secret for becoming a powerful influencer: the four simple steps of connected influence.
1
The Dangers of āDisconnectā
You cannot antagonize and influence at the same time.
J. S. Knox, in Fundamentals of Success
Did you ever try to get other people to do something that would be better for them, better for you, better for a project team or a company, better for their family or yours, or even better for the world . . . and fail?
Odds are you had good intentions. You had hard facts to support your point of view. Maybe you even set deadlines, offered rewards, or threatened penalties.
You tried your best, but they didnāt budge.
Itās an unhappy experience. But whatās far worse is when it happens over and over again. And for millions of smart, caring, and creative people just like you, it does. Even when these people are rightāwhen they have brilliant ideas, inspiring goals, or the best of intentionsāthey canāt get through.
If theyāre managers, they canāt light a spark under their teams. If theyāre in sales, they canāt make the big plays. If theyāre in relationships, they canāt get their partners or children to agree to their ideas. And if they have revolutionary ideas that could make the world better, they canāt get anyone to listen.
This book is for them.
If youāre one of these people, the methods youāre using to influence people arenāt working. Theyāre not inspired by your vision, and theyāre not willing to share your goals. And hereās why: Most people, most of the time, arenāt motivated to do what you want them to do. They donāt feel your urgency, theyāre busy with their own priorities and crises, or they have hidden reasons for rejecting your ideas.
To break down these walls, you need to create powerful connections that make people want to do what youāre recommending. But you donāt, because hereās what youāre thinking:
āHow can I get my boss to . . .ā
āHow can I get my team to . . .ā
āHow can I get this client to . . .ā
āHow can I get my partner to . . .ā
āHow can I get my kids to . . .ā
āHow can I get this interviewer to . . .ā
These are examples of disconnected influence. And they donāt work.
On the surface, of course, disconnected influence makes perfect sense. Youāve got to get things done. Important priorities are at stake. You size up a situation and see gaps that need to be filled and mistakes that need to be fixed. Maybe your project team is making a foolish decision. Or your boss needs to allocate more money to your project. Or your daughter is dating someone who isnāt good for her. Or your partner isnāt sticking to your family budget.
But when you view influence as āgetting people to do what I want,ā you actually reduce your influence. Thatās because youāre viewing the person youāre trying to influence as a target, an object, something to be pushed or pulled. Youāre not hearing the other personās message. And the other person either recognizes this immediately orāeven if you get temporary complianceāresents it later.
Disconnected influence is what many business schools teach. Itās what most experts teach. But if you have big goals and need long-term commitments, itās a prescription for failure.
To explain why, weād like to start with a story. But be forewarned: The take-away lesson may surprise you.
Scott is a manager at a large global healthcare firm. Heās at a strategic off-site meeting today.
Scott has a strong working relationship with Marcus, the vice president in charge of his division. Marcus values Scottās intellect, business acumen, and no-nonsense directness. He considers Scott the āhonest brokerā in the groupāthe person Marcus can count on to speak the truth even when itās risky.
In todayās meeting, an important issue involving new hires comes up. Marcus makes a quick decision and tells the group to move on to the next issue.
Scott speaks up: āWait a minute. Can we take a look at this decision? There are a lot of implications here.ā
āNo,ā says Marcus, āweāre moving on.ā
Scott knows Marcus is making a mistake. The distribution of new hires will have a huge impact on how well Marcusās team performs. There are crucial questions to ask and trade-offs to consider. Scott and Marcus have been discussing an exciting new project for the team, and this decision could make it much harder to launch.
Scott chooses his next words carefully. āBut Marcus,ā he says calmly and respectfully, āletās consider a couple of things that I expect everyone will agree are important to discuss for the good of the organization as a whole.ā
Marcus says firmly, āScott, Iāve made my decision.ā
Scott is confused, but he knows heās right. Heās not trying to pick a fight. Heās not trying to score points. Heās simply hoping to stop Marcus from making a decision that could harm the whole team. No one else will speak up, and he knows Marcus will appreciate his honesty later. Itās up to him.
So he says, āI understand, but I think it would help to . . .ā
Marcus cuts him off sharply, āEnough. Weāre moving on. The next issue is . . .ā
Scott is stunned. He feels devalued and disrespected. Heās only trying to do the right thing, and he has the knowledge and expertise to back up his concerns. Heās frustrated, and he leans back and folds his arms. Heās angry that Marcus is behaving in an authoritarian manner, making abrupt choices on a complex issue, and cutting him off rudely. Scott wonāt act out, but heās displeased, and theyāre going to talk about it later.
This is an unpleasant situation, and itās likely to get worse. Itās the kind of disagreement that can cause a close-knit team to fracture, or even make a top performer like Scott think about leaving.
But hereās the thing.
Itās not Marcus whoās screwing up.
Itās Scott.
The āBlind Spotā in Our Brains
Why are we pointing the finger at Scott, who is the rational, respectful manager whoās trying to make a logical point while his boss is riding roughshod over him?
Because Scott is making a dangerous mistake. Heās practicing disconnected influenceāāHow can I get Marcus to do what I want?ā Heās completely focused on his own point of view, and as a result, heās failing to connect with Marcus. And that means heās operating in his blind spot.
To get a feel for this, imagine youāre driving on the highway. You scan everything around you through the windshield and the rearview and sideview mirrors. The road is clear, so you move into the next lane.
The next instant, you feel a thud and hear a wrenching of metal. Your heart leaps into your throat as you realize youāve sideswiped a motorcyclist who was coming up behind you. From your perspective, he ācame out of nowhere.ā But he was there all along. You just didnāt see him, because you didnāt check your blind spot.
What does this have to do with influence? Your brain doesnāt merely have a blind spot when it comes to driving; it also has a blind spot when it comes to influencing. And like a driver who changes lanes without checking to see whatās in the blind spot, youāre dangerous when youāre blinded by your own point of view.
When you practice disconnected influence, youāre stuck in what we call your here. You can see your position, your facts, and your intentions clearly. But to connect with the people youāre trying to influence, you need to communicate from a perspective we call their there. You need to see their position, their facts, and their intentions clearly. And you canāt reach their there if you canāt see it. From your point of view, these people are invisibleājust like the motorcyclist.
And that brings us back to Scott. Because heās focused solely on his own message, heās communicating from his here. As a result, his brain has a blind spot when it comes to Marcusās thereāand thatās where he gets into trouble.
Scott and Marcus do talk later, but things donāt go the way Scott expects them to. Scott is expecting an apology from Marcus. Instead, Marcus shuts the door and says tersely, āSit down.ā Then he lights into Scott.
āYou ignored the clear signals I sent you,ā Marcus says. āYou know I respect your opinions. You know I donāt normally cut you off. You know I don t make snap decisions. So you should have realized that I did what I did for a reason.ā
As it turned out, upper management was planning a reorganization that would affect Scottās peers and their teams. Things werenāt entirely settled, and the senior team needed to keep the discussions confidential until the final decisions were made. Marcus knew that discussing the new hires would quickly put him into an ethical bind, because heād have to say things that werenāt true.
āI was annoyed when you continued to press the matter,ā Marcus says, ābut I know thatās what you doāand usually I appreciate it. But what really disappointed me is how you sulked afterwards and tuned me out. That was immature.ā
Three months later, on Scottās next performance review, along with the usual excellent ratings and comments, thereās a critical entry for the very first time: āHowever, sometimes when Scott doesnāt get his way, heās prone to act with immaturity and petulance.ā
Scott made a huge mistake in the meeting because he was blind to the urgent messages Marcus was sending him. He was so sure he was right that the only question he asked himself w...