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 doesnât earn you the commitment you need to achieve great things. Why? Because when youâre stuck in your here, you canât get to their thereâand thatâs where you need to be in order to persuade people effectively. In Section One, youâll discover the risks of disconnected influence and the four traps that cause you to fall into it. Then weâll share the secret for becoming a powerful influencer: the four simple steps of connected influence.
1
The Dangers of âDisconnectâ
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 didnât budge.
Itâs an unhappy experience. But whatâs 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 rightâwhen they have brilliant ideas, inspiring goals, or the best of intentionsâthey canât get through.
If theyâre managers, they canât light a spark under their teams. If theyâre in sales, they canât make the big plays. If theyâre in relationships, they canât get their partners or children to agree to their ideas. And if they have revolutionary ideas that could make the world better, they canât get anyone to listen.
This book is for them.
If youâre one of these people, the methods youâre using to influence people arenât working. Theyâre not inspired by your vision, and theyâre not willing to share your goals. And hereâs why: Most people, most of the time, arenât motivated to do what you want them to do. They donât feel your urgency, theyâre 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 youâre recommending. But you donât, because hereâs what youâre thinking:
âHow can I get my boss to . . .â
âHow can I get my team to . . .â
âHow can I get this client to . . .â
âHow can I get my partner to . . .â
âHow can I get my kids to . . .â
âHow can I get this interviewer to . . .â
These are examples of disconnected influence. And they donât work.
On the surface, of course, disconnected influence makes perfect sense. Youâve 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 isnât good for her. Or your partner isnât sticking to your family budget.
But when you view influence as âgetting people to do what I want,â you actually reduce your influence. Thatâs because youâre viewing the person youâre trying to influence as a target, an object, something to be pushed or pulled. Youâre not hearing the other personâs message. And the other person either recognizes this immediately orâeven if you get temporary complianceâresents it later.
Disconnected influence is what many business schools teach. Itâs what most experts teach. But if you have big goals and need long-term commitments, itâs a prescription for failure.
To explain why, weâd 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. Heâs 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 Scottâs intellect, business acumen, and no-nonsense directness. He considers Scott the âhonest brokerâ in the groupâthe person Marcus can count on to speak the truth even when itâs risky.
In todayâs 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: âWait a minute. Can we take a look at this decision? There are a lot of implications here.â
âNo,â says Marcus, âweâre moving on.â
Scott knows Marcus is making a mistake. The distribution of new hires will have a huge impact on how well Marcusâs 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. âBut Marcus,â he says calmly and respectfully, âletâs consider a couple of things that I expect everyone will agree are important to discuss for the good of the organization as a whole.â
Marcus says firmly, âScott, Iâve made my decision.â
Scott is confused, but he knows heâs right. Heâs not trying to pick a fight. Heâs not trying to score points. Heâs 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. Itâs up to him.
So he says, âI understand, but I think it would help to . . .â
Marcus cuts him off sharply, âEnough. Weâre moving on. The next issue is . . .â
Scott is stunned. He feels devalued and disrespected. Heâs only trying to do the right thing, and he has the knowledge and expertise to back up his concerns. Heâs frustrated, and he leans back and folds his arms. Heâs angry that Marcus is behaving in an authoritarian manner, making abrupt choices on a complex issue, and cutting him off rudely. Scott wonât act out, but heâs displeased, and theyâre going to talk about it later.
This is an unpleasant situation, and itâs likely to get worse. Itâs 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 hereâs the thing.
Itâs not Marcus whoâs screwing up.
Itâs Scott.
The âBlind Spotâ in Our Brains
Why are we pointing the finger at Scott, who is the rational, respectful manager whoâs trying to make a logical point while his boss is riding roughshod over him?
Because Scott is making a dangerous mistake. Heâs practicing disconnected influenceââHow can I get Marcus to do what I want?â Heâs completely focused on his own point of view, and as a result, heâs failing to connect with Marcus. And that means heâs operating in his blind spot.
To get a feel for this, imagine youâre 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 youâve sideswiped a motorcyclist who was coming up behind you. From your perspective, he âcame out of nowhere.â But he was there all along. You just didnât see him, because you didnât check your blind spot.
What does this have to do with influence? Your brain doesnât 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 whatâs in the blind spot, youâre dangerous when youâre blinded by your own point of view.
When you practice disconnected influence, youâre stuck in what we call your here. You can see your position, your facts, and your intentions clearly. But to connect with the people youâre 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 canât reach their there if you canât see it. From your point of view, these people are invisibleâjust like the motorcyclist.
And that brings us back to Scott. Because heâs focused solely on his own message, heâs communicating from his here. As a result, his brain has a blind spot when it comes to Marcusâs thereâand thatâs where he gets into trouble.
Scott and Marcus do talk later, but things donât go the way Scott expects them to. Scott is expecting an apology from Marcus. Instead, Marcus shuts the door and says tersely, âSit down.â Then he lights into Scott.
âYou ignored the clear signals I sent you,â Marcus says. âYou know I respect your opinions. You know I donât 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.â
As it turned out, upper management was planning a reorganization that would affect Scottâs peers and their teams. Things werenât 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 heâd have to say things that werenât true.
âI was annoyed when you continued to press the matter,â Marcus says, âbut I know thatâs what you doâand usually I appreciate it. But what really disappointed me is how you sulked afterwards and tuned me out. That was immature.â
Three months later, on Scottâs next performance review, along with the usual excellent ratings and comments, thereâs a critical entry for the very first time: âHowever, sometimes when Scott doesnât get his way, heâs prone to act with immaturity and petulance.â
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...