Introduction
Human beings exist as individuals, but in the context of society. There are few things that a person can do without interacting with others, and every interaction with others involves a sort of negotiation of responsibilities and benefits. We seek to gain the assistance of others in getting what we want, and in exchange we give them assistance in getting what they want. There are few situations in which the effort and benefit are so fair and so self-evident that cooperation is automatic. And as such there are few situations in which influence is unnecessary.
He mentions the fallacy that "influence" is often seen as some sort of innate magical power that only a few people possess - it is practiced by all people at all times. A simple greeting ritual is an attempt to suggest that our intentions are not hostile in hopes the other party will refrain from hostility as well. Something as simple as asking a friend to lunch is an attempt to influence their behavior. Influence isn't always as overt and formal as making a sales pitch - most of the time it is subtle and intuitive.
He also mentions the fallacy of "power." The belief that because a person is in a role of formal authority, that others will certainly obey their orders. Even a king can be deposed or simply ignored by the most humble of his peasants. Authority is not something a person has, but something they are given by others who choose to comply with their wishes. They always have the choice to refuse.
He then addresses the negative baggage of the term "influence," which often deals with unethical means of gaining compliance, generally by means of bribes and threats in the political area. Not all influence is unethical, and in many instances it can be beneficial - a doctor influencing a patient to take a pill he may be reluctant to swallow, convincing a friend to drop a bad habit, and so on. The means and method of motivating a person to change their behavior can be positive as well as negative.
Virtually all human communication involves influence: when we speak, write, or even gesture we are attempting to convince others to do something - if only to pay attention to what we are saying. We rarely impart information for the sake of information, but are providing information that will support a decision to undertake an action.
And this is the basic definition of influence: it is attempting to affect the behavior of other people. It may be to do something different, or to keep doing the same thing. The most basic form of influence is the simple statement that "I need your help," as this is most often what those who use influence are seeking - the help of others to accomplish things.
Ethical Influence
When influence is ethical, the person who is being influenced recognizes that a request is being made, and that he is able to freely consent to do what is asked of him - i.e., he will suffer no extrinsic consequences for refusing to cooperate. Anything that interferes with those two key qualities is unethical. For example, deceit and manipulation misrepresent what the person is expected to do or what the consequences will be. Threat or coercion impose an extrinsic penalty for refusing to consent.
Unethical influence can lead to short-term success and long-term failure. A person can be deceived into cooperating, but when he discovers the deceit he will not want to engage with his deceiver. Threat will likewise gain cooperation, but the person will shun those who threaten him and seek to avoid interacting with them in future. Not only will the person who was thus abused seek to avoid interaction, but those whom they tell about this behavior will likewise be reluctant - and in this age of communication and social media, word carries fast and far.
For these reasons, the unethical methods of influence are ultimate more harmful than helpful - it takes a great deal more effort to constantly seek new victims than to deal fairly with the same people repeatedly over time.
Influence and Authority
Authority is merely a convention: it is generally accepted within a culture that some people are entitled to command others. Very often, this is connected to their formal role - as it is believed that people in specific roles are "leaders" who are acting in the greater good, and that complying with their requests is necessary for the benefit of society. In some cultures, people do not question the motives of politicians - it is taken for granted that they are competent, capable, and are acting in the best interests of everyone. On other cultures, they have lost that status.
In other instances, authority is established because there is a belief that the person in question has the ability to inflict harm on those who refuse to comply. The original source of political authority was military force - people obeyed those who had weapons and henchmen for fear of suffering greater harm. The authority of the clergy is likewise based on the fear of the wrath of gods and spirits to those who refuse to comply. Conversely, they may reward those who are obedient to their will.
But authority is most often based on assumption, and asking questions dispels authority: is this person really acting in the greater good? Do they really have the right or ability to reward or punish me? Very often, we have found that the assumptions we had (with a great deal of encouragement on the part of those who wished to exercise power over us) are entirely false. And when this is discovered, authority crumbles.
In the present day, people are prone to question authority. The author specifically names Generation X as the turning point, in which society at large became disillusioned with their leaders and began to question the legitimacy of their authority. Very often, a person who is attempting to exercise authority is viewed with suspicion - and very often, those suspicions are well founded.
This doesn't mean that authority is dead, merely that one cannot assume authority without earning the trust of others and establishing a track record of dealing with others fairly and honestly.
Learning Influence
He returns to the earlier fallacy: that influence is an innate power that some people simply have and others simply don't. This is not at all true. Influencing skills are learned, and while some people seem to have a knack for gaining and exercising influence, it's a skill that others can learn as well.
Influencing effectively requires a great deal of insight into other people, their perceptions and their motives. It is relatively easy to understand a person of the same culture - the more a person is "like" you, the more you understand what motivates them, the more you understand how to motivate them. The less a person is like you, the more of a mystery they are, and the harder you must work to understand what makes them tick.
In the modern multicultural age, influence is more difficult: we meet very few people who are carbon-copies of our own attitudes and beliefs, and tend to be avoidant and judgmental of others who think differently to ourselves. It's hard to understand, and even when information is available it's hard to accept people such as they are and to get inside their mindset rather than demanding they change to our own. But "difficult" is not "impossible" - it requires being a lot more open-minded and curious, willing to experiment and adapt oneself.
Ultimately, influence requires the same basic steps: to discover what a person wants, and to persuade them that they can get what they want by doing what we ask of them - whether it is a direct benefit of the action in question or a reward that we will provide when we return the favor by doing something on their behalf.