jim.shamlin.com

2: The Ways and Means of Influence

The author marvels at the number of words in the English language that have to do with influencing people. Even if you eliminate the ones that are clearly unethical (blackmail, bully, cheat, deceive, etc.) there are still dozens of words, each of which implies a different technique or tactic for influencing another person to do something. The author sorts various words into three basic categories:

The rational approach is the most overt: where there is a logical reason to want something, it can be discussed openly. People tend to be less comfortable speaking about their social or emotional ambitions (at least in western cultures). To say "it is logical" seems perfectly acceptable, but to say "it will make me popular" or "it will make me feel good" seems self-indulgent and immature - in spite of the fact that people are motivated by such things.

There is also the consideration of the beneficiary. People are sometimes motivated to do things that benefit themselves personally, though taken to extremes they may be uncomfortable about being selfish. In other instances, people will be motivated to do things that deliver a benefit to a group to which they belong or own loyalty. A person will do something that benefits their family, their school, their town, their industry, etc. In still others, people will be motivated to do things that deliver a benefit to another person or a group to which they do not belong out of sympathy or respect - such as donating to a fund to help a recent widow, volunteering at a soup kitchen to feed the working poor, etc.

(EN: This seems a bit tangled to me. On one hand, delivering benefits to others brings an emotional or social reward, but it may be undertaken because of a logical appeal that makes a rational case for how the benefits will be delivered by means of the action. So these are likely separate considerations.)

Influence and Leadership

The author makes the case that influence is the means of gaining and exercising leadership - but the relationship is circular. A person who has succeeded in influencing us in the past (we took the action and received the benefit as expected) can more easily gain our cooperation in future because we trust in them and expect our future actions with them to be beneficial. A person whose influence has grown to the point where we trust them implicitly and accept their influence without hesitation is a "leader." And in the leadership role, the leader continues to use his influence to motivate his followers.

There is a brief consideration that those who use unethical or illegitimate methods to influence others is never considered to be a leader. A person who tricks people into doing things actually diminishes his influence and he is not trusted or respected. A person who bullies people into doing things is likewise not viewed in a positive, trusting, or respectful manner. Such people are not leaders because people shun rather than follow them.

It's also suggested that people who use their power to reward are not considered to be leaders. Consider the employer who is constantly enticing his workers with monetary rewards: his workers are not loyal to him and care only about the money he is able to give them. Because people tend to have an unlimited appetite for money, they may be glad of a relationship in which they are constantly receiving rewards, but they do not trust or respect the person or consider him to be a leader, but merely a customer.

The author provides a rather poetic and heroic vision of the leader - but the core of what he is suggesting is true: a leader helps people to achieve their goals, gives them courage and direction to take action they would likely not have taken without his help, etc. Such a leader is not a commander with power to compel his followers, but a servant with the power to empower them to act.