This week, I am running a series of posts on influence as a follow up to a session at HRevolution 2010.
Monday, we waxed philosophical about influence and ethics. Tuesday, we got into the gritty details. Wednesday, I showed you how to tie a bowtie.
(Why not.)
Today, we look at influence and power.
Let me reiterate here the Moral Imperative: regardless of what form of influence you use, you have an obligation to yourself to use influence for the good of mankind. In other words, if you’re going to impose your will on others, at the very least, make sure it’s for the benefit of them as much as for yourself.
Now for that crash course on influence and power:
- Power is an extreme form of influence.
- Power can be very effective in the short term.
- Power gets used up. Drop a bomb, and you can’t drop another one until the replacement is manufactured. Throw a few punches, and you can’t throw any more until you catch your breath. Exert political power, and you box yourself in a corner because everyone sees your methods.
- Since people don’t like being made to feel weak, using power can cause others to feel frustrated, angry, and worst of all for you, vengeful.
For those of you not keeping score at home, I’ll recap: while ensuring a short term win, power weakens the victor relative to the loser and simultaneously makes the loser want to get revenge for being made to feel weak.
Can you see why power should be your option of last resort?
Now, if you have power and want to flex it, I suggest making a very specific, very credible threat, in a way that lessens the risk you might actually need to follow through on said threat.
Still, better than either of these options is influence through positive reinforcement. This comes in 2 flavors:
- Transactional—Straight quid pro quo. Do A for me, I do B for you.
- Transformational—I create, in your brain, a mental association between the behavior I want from you and some aspirational goal you have, thereby transforming the tasks I want you to engage in into steps along the your life’s story.
True, transactional arrangements are pretty uninspiring, and often break down when one side builds up sufficient enough power to lean on the other. Many people spend their whole lives under the illusion that this is as good as it gets.
Well, it’s not.
Transforming how others view their worlds is as good as it gets. Do this and you won’t need to work so hard to keep others motivated, nor will you need to fight to get them to change. In their eyes, you become an enabler to their goals, so when you speak, believe me, they’ll listen!
How you do this is through the use of those glitches I wrote about on Tuesday. For instance, pretend I want you to read Frank Roche’s blog, KnowHR. I can tell you to do it in an authoritative voice, thereby making your world seem safer and more structured. Or, I can tell you that’s one of the first blogs I myself started reading regularly, thereby giving you an “in group” to belong to, or that Frank is devoted to sustainability in a very practical way.
If the approach I take matches with your aspirational goal (safety, inclusion, responsible living), you’ll probably decide to check him out… Then, if you like what you see, I’ve earned trust and the right to make another suggestion later. If I rack up a string of hits long enough, I get a TV show, go by my first name, and give away cars to people in the studio audience.
And if, after a few hits, I mess up? Rather than seek revenge, you’ll find an excuse for me and start selling it to others on my behalf.
Now that’s power!
Let’s just not pretend that the goal here is any different from the goal of using power: I still am bending you to my will, getting you to do what I think is in your best interest. If you are not comfortable with using power, you will not be comfortable with transformational influence, either.
Because if you’re not imposing your will, you’re not really influencing anyone—you’re merely making friends.
 | 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. 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Could we say, “Read KnowHR because Frank is desperate for new friends”?
That’s another type of persuasion — pity. Actually, I really like this series and appreciate the mention. You know how to influence, brother. It starts with getting attention.
Frank, we could say that, but let’s not kid ourselves; “desperate” is one thing you most certainly are not!
What happened to my comment? Should I repost?
One night, on the Twitter stream for #HRHappyHour I saw @LRuettimann raving about @FrankRoche so I started following him on Twitter – http://twitter.com/frankroche
I’m in the habit of critiquing the Twitter pages of my new follows and followers. Most people don’t like to be criticized but a lot of them see the obvious errors they made as new users. Not Frank Roche. He went ballistic. First, he blocked me. Then, in apparent fit of hysteria, he made his Twitter page private.
As you predict in your article, this kind of power play seemed freakish and strange and was a huge turnoff. So, it’s ironic to find him touted in an article about the blunt and subtle use of power.
@Animal—Actually, the one making the power play was you. Assuming the authority to critique someone else is a power grab on an interpersonal level. You shouldn’t be surprised at Frank’s response, nor should you try to imply that his response was inappropriate. I’ve been the recipient of your critiques as well; it cost you a follower.
“Truth without empathy is abuse.” You could use a dose of empathy in your attacks, Animal.
Excellent points. If I were to add anything it is the concept of “Honesty.”
The more honest we are with ourselves and with the situation around us, the more influence we can have. The more we see things for how they are and not for how we would wish them, the more we will be act in ways that are effective.
I know that you’ve thought about power, Jason, but your reply to me here is fairly myopic.
When one person acts, he draws others into action. And just as he is tested by the action he initiates, they are tested in their response.
World War Two provides a common context for this kind of discussion.
Hitler initiated aggressive action against Czechoslovakia but the Allies are judged by their capitulation at Munich.
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor but the Americans are still judged for the atom bomb.
Frank’s response to whatever I said was not that of a reasoning actor, the kind of person you are advising us to be in this posting. It was purely emotional and reactive.
He might be your pal, and I might not be, but, you have to watch what you say here because it’s going to test your ideas against the gritty details of real life.
I have to go out now but I’ll try to get back later today with an analysis based on the frame of reference supplied by you above.
By the way, Jason, it’s not a good idea to make your twitter link a tiny button at the very top corner of your page when you have so much room in your sidebar.
@Animal. Bwahahahahaha. Obsess much?
Invoking Godwin’s Law? LOL. You lose.
@Animal—If you want a context for your behavior, you’d do better to look to the muckrakers and paparazzi of the journalism world, not to the nations of WWII.
@Ira—You make a great point about honesty. I’ll second that.
Better watch it Frank Roche. Your true colors are showing.
In case, anyone doesn’t know Godwin’s Law, you can read about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
The rule is that the longer a discussion goes on, the greater the likelihood that it will lead to the Nazis. It’s meant to be funny and often is but what usually happens is that a writer accuses the other guy, absurdly, of being like Hitler.
That’s not what happened here. In fact, quite the reverse. I took responsibility for the initial action and said that Frank was to be judged by his response.
And it’s not really surprising or ridiculous that many discussions refer to examples from the 1930s and 40s because they are so prominent in our recent history.
The point is that even if one person initiates an action, other people, even if they are mere bystanders, are implicated by their response. So, Jason’s attempt to say that my actions are the only ones to be judged is not effective. Frank’s use or misuse of power is called into question as well.
As for what Frank says here, he’s just trying to ridicule his way out from behind the 8 Ball. If he did it well, it would be funny but, so far, the fun is still coming.