1: Fundamentals of Influence
The author refers to the huge volume of literature about influence - piles of books about how to succeed in romantic relationships and business negotiations, which make outlandish claims such as "get anyone to say yes in eight minutes or less." Most of this is snake oil - totally worthless or even harmful in that it coaches people in the art of deception and manipulation.
There are no sure-fire secret tricks to influence. If there were, there would be far fewer books on the subject - because if one author discovered the real secret, there would be no need for any other. Part of the reason there are so many is that people get wise to certain tricks - and when this happens it's necessary to learn a new trick, and that will work until it gets stale.
But the vast amount of this material shows how desperate people are to have the ability to influence others. In reality, there is no trick (nor even any legitimate technique) that can be used to exert influence over all the people all of the time. People are more complicated than that, and they are so idiosyncratic that no single procedure could possible work on them all.
The Basics of Influence
The ability to influence someone depends on your ability to convey that they can get what they want by doing what you ask of them. It really is that simple. But consider this ...
- You must know what they want in order to offer it to them
- You must convince them that they will actually get what they want if they do as you ask
- You must convince them that getting what they want is worth the effort/cost of what you're asking of them
- You must convince them that doing what you ask is the easiest way to get what they want
- To influence them a second time, you must ensure they get what they want after doing what you asked this time
All of this is actually quite difficult, which is the reason that it is so difficult to influence people, and that there are some people who are utterly immune to persuasion.
The Range of Possible Outcomes
The author suggests that influence is not a pass/fail situation. Success means that they do what you have asked, and failure means that they have completely disengaged from you (and often have become hostile toward you) or that you have given up trying to influence them. Instead, each attempt to persuade someone simply moves them in one direction or the other, and multiple attempts are usually undertaken before succeeding or failing. And each attempt has a lingering effect on future attempts.
First, consider that everyone has a baseline state - they are going about their day doing in their usual fashion, when an attempt to influence them interferes. This is generally a little bit annoying, and is often ignored because there are many attempts to distract them every day. Consider the number of signs and advertisements a person drives past on their way to the office, each of them attempting to persuade the person to stop and purchase something. Consider the volume of "spam" that reaches their inbox, and even legitimate email is often attempting to get their attention so they will read and act upon it. Every person the talk to wants something of them. If a person paid attention to ever attempt to influence them, they would get nothing else done - and wouldn't even be able to do something that someone else wanted before yet another person tried to take them over. And so, most of us have learned to ignore most of the attempts to influence us in our everyday lives.
There's a bit of a diversion about compliance and commitment. To comply is to do s something unenthusiastically and perhaps begrudgingly - it's usually something simple that does not require a lot of time or effort, and not doing it is easier or more socially comfortable than refusing the request. Beggars who hustle change often get compliance out of people who feel it's less of a hassle to give them a little money than to refuse or avoid them. Commitment, meanwhile, is acceptable with greater enthusiasm: a committed person has a desire to complete the action, will spend more time and accept more difficulty to see that they complete the request in a satisfactory manner. A compliant person will abandon the task, often with a sense of relief in not having to do it, whereas a committed person will undertake pain to see it through. The point to all of this is that you should not mistake compliance for commitment, or assume that a person is committed simply because they comply.
Then, there is some considerations of reactions on the negative side of the scale. Skepticism is a common reaction when a person is doubtful of the plan or distrustful of person attempting to influence them - this does not preclude their consent, but makes it more difficult to obtain. Resistance refers more to the conscious decision to refuse to cooperate, at least for the moment. Resistance can likewise be overcome, and is rather more easy to deal with than skepticism because resistance is conscious and specific whereas skepticism may be vague (harder to address). Further along the scale is what the author calls "rebellion," which is not merely the refusal of a single request, but the utter rejection of any request from a given person, typically in reaction to their conduct in past interactions. A rebellious person is very difficult to reason with and is not interested in negotiating, and may even seek to discourage others or even to retaliate.
Returning to the iterative nature of influence - every interaction with a person moves the needle one way or another. You may have to ask a person several times before they agree, and once they have agreed your behavior may lead them to abandon their commitment. Each successful attempt makes the person more amenable to you in future, and each failed attempt may strengthen their resistance. This is particularly important to consider as many authors who write about influence and persuasion seem to consider each incident a single succeed/fail attempt and ignore the long-term relationship.
Principles of Influence
The author offers a succotash of observations about influence.
Influence Attempts May Fail for Many Reasons
"The idea that you can influence anyone to do anything is nonsense." Going back to the earlier statement: The ability to influence someone depends on your ability to convey that they can get what they want by doing what you ask of them. If they don't want what you offer, or feel what you ask is not the best way to get it, etc., then they are not susceptible to influence.
There are even reasons a person may choose not to cooperate when it seems in their interest: their time and resources are limited, they are distracted by something more important, they may feel your plan is unethical or unacceptable, they may have a highly negative opinion of you or your company, etc.
The best performing salesmen aren't the ones who put a lot of effort into browbeating a person who is reluctant to buy - but the ones who recognize when a person is unlikely to buy and avoid wasting time on them, focusing instead on the most likely prospects. Likewise, it's a good idea to pause before you attempt to influence someone and assess how likely they are to be amenable to assisting you - and if the prospect seems tough, consider whether there might be someone else whom you can approach.
Influence Is Contextual
There is the notion that asking someone in the "right" place and at the "right" time and when they are in the "right" mood increases your chances of gaining their cooperation - and this is absolutely correct, but these are only some of the superficial characteristics of the context of a decision. You can certainly see how at the wrong time, the wrong place, and the wrong mood can lead them to flatly reject a proposal and even to become annoyed at you for asking.
- Their environmental context can have a strong influence on which interests a person is most focused on: people are not interested in buying umbrellas on a sunny day, nor interested in buying life insurance when they are young and healthy. The do not want to be disturbed at work about their personal interests, nor disturbed at home about matters related to work.
- The social context them can also have an influence. There are some instances in which it's best to approach a married couple together, others in which it's best to approach one without the other being present. In some instances, a person will be more interested in a given proposal if agreeing with it will impress someone who is overhearing the conversation - or less interested if agreeing would dismay or disappoint an eavesdropper.
- The emotional context considers the person's general mood and what is on their mind at the moment. In general, a person in a good mood is more optimistic about any proposal than a person who is in a foul mood - in which case they may be too irritated even to hear you out. Interrupting someone in the course of doing something important is very seldom a good idea.
The author suggests an exercise in empathy - ask yourself "Why would this person say yes or no?" and consider their situation from their perspective. What are the practical/emotional consequences of accepting or refusing? What other people might be aware of the decision and judge him for making it? Does he have previous experience with you or your firm? What kind of mood is he going to be in when you approach him? What else might he be concerned about? It's impossible to be comprehensive, or even very accurate - but the important thing is to put yourself in a frame of mind where you are curious and observant of the other person, not focused entirely on what you want.
Influence Is a Process, Not an Event
Repeating his earlier point, there are very few times in which you will ask only once and get compliance (or accept refusal). You will approach this person multiple times about the thing you want them to do right now, and you will likely deal with them in future for other things. Your behavior in each step of the negotiation can make them more or less inclined to help you now and in future.
This does not mean pestering a person until they agree just to be rid of you - this is compliance rather than consent and people will often renege on their promises if they have been badgered, and will at the very least be annoyed, which harms your chances of success and damages the relationship. "Pestering" involves making the same appeal over and over - it's not generally effective. Instead, if you fail, reconsider your appeal and come at them from a different angle.
Even after a person has agreed to do what you want, influence is not over - they may forget, change their mind, or renege. You will need to renew/refresh their commitment until they have taken the action.
Influence Is Cultural
The basic principle of influence is universal - you ask someone to do something, and they will consider whether what they get is worth what is asked - but the assessment of the value of things and the acceptability of actions greatly differs by culture. In some instances, there may even be different rules of etiquette about how to ask a favor or offer a reward, or even formal rituals that surround any process of negotiation.
The author provides several examples of cultural idiosyncrasies - but the core of the message is that you should seek to learn about the culture of the people you are attempting to influence, and not assume that they will respond in a manner similar to people of your own culture.
Ethical Influence is Consensual and Often Bilateral
In general, there are two basic qualities of ethical negotiation: it is consensual and bilateral.
"Consensual" is simply a matter of making it clear that the other party is being asked to do something and that they have the option of refusing - the only consequence will be to forego the reward that is being offered in exchange for their participation.
"Bilateral" means that there is an exchange of values: the person gets something from you in return for what you are asking of them. The more explicit the terms of the exchange, the less likely it is the other person will feel that they are taken advantage of, or will expect something disproportionate in return for their help.
Unethical Influence Always Has a Cost
People will resort to unethical means to get their way - but even when they succeed, it always comes at a cost. People resent being deceived, manipulated, or bullied into doing things, and will seek to avoid any future involvement with a person who uses those tactics, or they may even seek to retaliate against them.
There are few instances in which you are dealing with someone that you will never need to work with again - and even then, that person can (and will) warn others about your misconduct.
A merchant may make a profit by cheating a customer, but that customer will never buy from him again if there is another option, nor will anyone who listens to his story about the incident. An abusive boss will find his best people leave when they can find a job elsewhere, and he will have problems recruiting talent when the word gets out.
People Respond Best to Techniques They Use Themselves
In general, people act on the premise that other people are like them. When they negotiate, they use tactics on others that would succeed on them. So if you can observe someone attempting to influence others, or pay attention to the way they attempt to influence you, then you can glean what might be effective if you were working with them.
There is, of course, a caveat: if they are a skilled negotiator who has done their research, their behavior will be tailored to the other person rather than reflecting their own
People Reveal What They Find Most Influential
If you are observant, you will be able to listen and observe the behavior of people and determine what they value and how they prefer to interact with others. A gregarious and friendly person is often most susceptible to social influence, a religious person is most susceptible to speaking to their personal values, a stoic and straightforward person is most susceptible to logical reasoning.
The key to becoming an effective negotiator isn't in your communication skills, as a sophisticated argument may be ineffective or even offensive to some people. Instead, it is being observant and empathic, developing the ability to "read" people and discover what is important to them, in order to present your case in an appealing manner.
Influence Often Requires a Mix of Techniques
People who are successful at influence rarely have a single go-to method of persuasion that they use in all instances - but instead, they have various tools in their kit and are able to recognize and apply the right approach for a given situation. Getting a person's consent is like solving a problem: you try an approach that you believe will be effective, but switch to a different approach if you find that you are not making headway.
Particularly when you are approaching someone for the first time and have no idea what appeals to them, it's necessary to make some exploratory gestures to determine what is effective with them before getting to the "ask." The reason that people tend to make "small talk" before getting into a business conversation is precisely thus: to feel the other person out to get an idea of how to go at them.
The author mentions that people who are not accomplished at negotiating will often go with a single technique, and work it harder and more persistently if they do not gain consent, not realizing that they are annoying the other person and decreasing the likelihood of getting consent, possibly even damaging their relationship.
Power Amplifies Influence
The word "power" is another term that seems to be shrouded in mystery: it is simply the ability to create consequences for other people. Again, one of the fundamental factors of influence is being able to offer something of value in exchange for the service you are requesting - you must be perceived as having the power to ensure that the other party is compensated.
It is also a mistake to say that someone "has" power over others. Power is given to a person by others. One need not have the power to benefit others, but merely to be perceived as having that power. This is why many con artists attempt to pose as wealthy individuals or people in positions of formal authority - others believe they have power. Of course, all power (and perception of it) is lost when it is tested and fails.
The same can be said of people who have the capability to exercise power but refuse to do so. A boss can imply that an employee will get a bonus for doing something, but if the employee does his bit and the boss does not dispense the bonus, then his future promises are not believed and he has no power (even though he could authorize a bonus, he has chosen not to).
There is a brief mention of punitive power - but this is an unethical use of influence. To threaten or blackmail another person may be effective in the short term (if they believe you have and will use that power), but they will seek to avoid any future engagement and may even seek a way to escape punishment without doing what is demanded.
Power amplifies influence, but does not substitute for it. Remember that the reward that you offer must be something that the other party desires - so having a lot of money gives you no power over a person who values something else more than money.