This week, I am running a series of posts on influence as a follow up to a session at HRevolution 2010.
There are not many positive synonyms for “influence” in English. In fact, some words that have to do with influence (either the act of influencing or setting someone up to be influenced) are negative enough to elicit a visceral response from people. For example, say the following words aloud and take not of how each makes you feel:
- Manipulative
- Coercive
- Machiavellian
- Political
- Wheedling
- Prejudiced
Not good.
Perhaps to combat the somewhat slimy feeling these words can leave behind, I find people who are new to the science of influence sometimes like to wrap the subject in overly idealized terms. Instead of talking about “influence” and risking having the discussion derail into something more Machiavellian, people talk about value-based decision making, ethics, servant leadership, and other important topics that orbit around influence but that are not influence.
In Super Staying Power, I short-circuit this issue by explicitly stating that I believe people have a moral imperative to use influence for good. And yet, despite quick and eager agreement, this assumption is still not enough of a reassurance; someone learning the principles of influence for the first time likely will still need to pause many times throughout the learning for reassurances that they’re learning influence and not “manipulation” or “semantic games.”
Which is why, if you want to learn to influence others, step one has to be:
1. Reconcile, in your own brain, the ideas of “actively imposing your will onto others” and “respecting the will of others.”
Because really, this is what influence is all about: getting someone to do what you want them to do, even when they’d prefer to do something else.
Now, this question may sound a little philosophical, but it’s actually quite practical. Avoiding this question leaves a faulty morality trigger in place that can prevent you from exerting influence. Remember those feelings you had when you read that list of words up there? Those feelings are the result of triggers being activated, and they serve as warnings that you’re engaged in something bad. If you don’t convince yourself that influence is OK, then your brain leaves the influence/manipulation/Machiavellian associations in place, and then, when you try to influence someone, your brain stops you, saying, “This influence thing is no different than manipulation, manipulation is bad, I must stop!” We have to break the association in order to disengage that trigger.
“Wait a sec, Seiden. Are you suggesting that I reconsider my ethical standards?”
You bet I am.
For a complete discussion of why, read the chapters in Super Staying Power about Functional, Social, and Political Excellence at work. The full subject is too much for a blog post, but in short, the message is: your perspective evolves as you progress through your career. Like in the Jimmy Buffet song “Margaritaville,” your sense of who’s to blame and what to do about it evolves over time. Influence isn’t about becoming a game player (remember the moral imperative)! Influence is about actively courting the wiser, broader perspective of your future self and putting it to use today.
Spend the day today asking yourself the question above. Tomorrow, I’ll dive into the tactics on how to get people to change their behavior.
 | Enjoy this blog? Listen to my new podcast, Beyond Social. |
I'm Jason. I make people shine. My mission is to help 1 million people tell their stories better. 
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I was thinking about this influence vs. manipulation thing a few weeks ago. This is what I came up with….
Manipulation: getting someone to do what you want them to do, even when they prefer to do something else.
Influence: getting someone to prefer to do what you want them to do, even when they had originally preferred to do something else.
Eva—I think people often have trouble accepting that mechanically, manipulation and influence are exactly the same thing. All that changes is the context in which the activity is done.
How about getting to know the person as a human being and understanding their strengths and weaknesses, and later focusing their efforts in the areas that they are already naturally good at and enjoy?
I can’t see the benefit of having Jon the plumber cook dinner, while at the same time having Abe the chef repare the toilet.
That’s the real problem I’m seeing here. People using other people as tools, rather then just getting to know them as people, then understanding and guiding them towards something they are already talented and happy to do.
Anthony—All good stuff. You describe friendship… or coaching, or mentoring, or teaching… at its best. And insofar as what someone is doing naturally perfectly aligns with what you need, fantastic; ride the symbiotic wave.
But when the day comes when you need something, and to achieve it, you need to shape the actions of others, then the take-them-as-they-come approach is going to seem a more than a little kum-ba-ya.
That’s when you’ll need to bust out the influence.