Home Who We work with how we work Services workshops blog Resources About us Contact

“Working with Eric was a pleasure. We developed a good rapport and established a level of honesty and trust. I valued his counsel and recommendations. I find Eric to be very competent in a variety of disciplines. He is able to correctly diagnose organizational problems and suggest solutions that are on point. I found Eric to be a professional with the highest levels of honesty, integrity, and ethical behavior. I would not hesitate to engage his services again in the future.”

Kathy Lueckert,
former Corporate Services Director,
Department of Planning and Development,
City of Seattle
(Kathy is now Director of Planning and Finance for Advocacy and Communications at World Vision.)

“I've worked closely with Eric on developing and presenting the Leadership Eastside community leadership program. He has that rare blend of extensive real-world experience along with a very strong background in theory and research. He moves easily between big picture strategy and the tactical details. Eric brings a superb ability to plan, execute and follow-through, both as a behind-the-scenes planner and as an upfront instructor and facilitator.”

Annalee Luhman,
founding board member,
Leadership Eastside

 

Conflict and change: The blog

 Subscribe in a reader

 

26 November 2008

Whatever you do, avoid dialogue

Have you noticed the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid actually talking with somebody?

I’ve experienced two situations lately where people are trying all sorts of tactics to avoid having to talk with each other.

In one situation, an employee repeatedly refused to go talk with a co-worker on a trivial matter because they have experienced conflict in the past. Her manager had to repeatedly insist that she go talk with him.

In another case, two people were able to talk about most things, except each other’s performance. They wanted to use some anonymous surveys to collect feedback from others—feedback they already had but were unwilling to share with each other.

And, of course, we have countless examples of avoidance and passive aggression (as well as pure aggression) in how e-mail is used in most offices today.

So, why is it so hard for people to actually talk? Here are just two reasons:

People are often afraid of what they or the other person might say or do. They fear violence—mostly verbal but occasionally physical. What may be even scarier is their own behavior. They fear that they will lose control of themselves, and feel guilty or ashamed later.

People also fear strong emotions. They don’t want to feel the sometimes terrible, searing pain of rage. They don’t want to come away from the encounter with days of wound-licking.

Despite these fears, when we enter the conversation and try to talk, we often come out better than we expected. In most cases our worst fears are not realized. How do you do start a tense conversation? I’ll say more in future posts.

 

10 November 2008

Questions as hard power

Ever watched a press conference or interview an observed how hard the people responding work to avoid answering the questions they’re asked? In debates, town hall meetings, and call-in shows, questions are carefully screened.

Why?

Because questions are powerful—even revolutionary. They’re often more powerful than answers. The questions you ask can change minds, expose inconsistencies, and even raise people’s ire (if they didn’t want that question asked).

Once a question is out there, it can’t be retracted. And, once asked, a question demands an answer, even if it’s suppressed. They lead you somewhere. This is why questions can be threatening to people.

For that reason, I think of questions—like “How does this project advance our mission?” or “If we treat customer X this way, why don’t we treat customer Y the same way?”—as hard power tools. They don’t exactly coerce someone to do something, but they make it mighty hard for folks to avoid the issues they raise.

Like all hard power tools, when asking questions, influence leaders need to make sure they are acting strategically and without using manipulation. Questions can be mighty powerful and misuse of them can lead to big problems.

 

7 November 2008

Hard power

Much of my advice in this blog is focused on “soft power”: how to use influence, charisma, communication and other subtle tools to make change in your world. But what about “hard power”, like coercion or strong-arm tactics? As an influence leader, you don't have as much hard power as someone with rank—say a CEO or governor, but you have some. Here are a few examples:

Quit. Hollywood reminds us that when the going gets tough, you can always quit your job. If you’ve been asked to do something unethical or stupid, or you’re being treated with such disrespect or contempt, you can always get out.

Wait to say yes. I think the influence leader’s power is the greatest just before they say “yes.” Once you accept a job, a project or assignment, you lose a lot of leverage. People start to take you for granted and often stop trying to accommodate you. If you use that moment just before saying yes, you can get concessions and ask questions that would be much harder to get later.

Say no—with a reason. You can also say “no” to something you don’t agree with. This is the flip side of quitting—you force the other person to decide whether or not to keep you. If you say “no,” you need to deliver a very clear explanation of how the action runs contrary to the goals, values, or beliefs you think are important. And, do it coolly and calmly. If you’re agitated, wait till you’ve got your composure back.

I’ve seen a lot of influence leaders talk themselves out of their hard power; they don’t like it and don’t want to even consider using it. I think that’s a mistake. You can use hard power and still be an ethical influence leader.

 

24 October 2008

Not get emotionally invested? What, are you crazy?

How can you care about something without getting emotionally invested in it (as I suggested in the "Think like a campaigner" blog entry)? If you're asking yourself that question, you may be like a blog reader who challenged me, asking how you can keep your emotions in check while also being committed.

The trick is to keep your eye on the prize and keep your ego in check.

Keep that long-term goal in mind. What is your goal? What do you want to change? The goal here needs to be something that helps the "greater good"—the larger organization or its mission. Not something that benefits only you. If it only benefits you (like a promotion), it'll be very hard to keep your ego from getting pulled into the fray.

Keeping your emotions in check is very hard--but also the sign of an expert influence leader. Obviously, you care. But if you start to care too much and let your emotions run away with you, you can do a lot of harm.

The most straightforward way for keeping emotions in check is to challenge and revise the "stories" (interpretations, conclusions, judgments, assumptions) you make about other people and events—especially those stories concerning another person's motives. If you view that person as a villain and out to get you (your story), you're going to feel angry (your emotion) and probably act on that emotion. And, ultimately, hurt your cause because your reptilian (fight or flight) brain will be doing the thinking for you.

And, you may do a lot of damage to your goal and the relationships you need to achieve it.

How do you regain your balance? Recognize and examine that story. Instead of thinking of the other person as a villain or adversary, ask yourself: Why would a reasonable, rational, decent person do this? Develop a couple of additional stories and compare them to the original. Is it possible your story needs revision?

If you can both keep that eye on the prize as well as your emotions in check, you'll keep your whole brain involved and be much, much more effective as an influence leader.

 

24 September 2008

Then, he got defensive

Have you ever approached someone to ask them a question or share information and immediately encounter a wall of defensiveness?

This is what happened to a coaching client I spoke with the other day. She didn't understand where the defensive reaction was coming from. She felt that she had approached the person as gently as she could.

Well, there's no telling what might "set someone off" on any given day. There are dozens of possible factors. I wouldn't worry about all the possibilities and instead focus only on those things you control--primarily your behavior.

Fortunately, though, when someone is acting defensively, it's a little easier to figure out. First, you've got to pause the conversation you're trying to have and switch gears. Find out with of two things are happening. (1) The other person doesn't think you respect them or (2) he or she thinks you are working against them.

If you've "dissed" the person, even accidentally, then by all means apologize. Just make it a sincere apology. (Note: "I'm sorry you're defensive" is NOT a sincere apology.) Next, tell them what you didn't intend to do (upset them), and follow with what you did intend to do. This is a great trust-restorer--again if you're sincere.

If you suspect that the other person thinks that you two are at odds with each other, then look for the common ground. What are you both working toward? You both want the company to look good. Heck, you both want to look good, too. (Maybe they feel defensive because they think you are trying to show them up?)

You can deal with defensiveness if you notice it and deal with it, before getting back to the original topic. The better you are at dealing with defensiveness, the more effective an influence leader you'll be.

 

23 September 2008

Think like a campaigner

It's an election season, and we're surrounded by campaigns for candidates, referendums, and ballot initiatives (at least out here in the West). By this point the process, only the most ardent supporters are not weary of it all.

Yet, someone will win in the end.

Consider the influence leader who thinks of her strategy as a campaign. She has a crystal-clear goal or strategy and musters needed resources (in the forms of allies and money). She develops sticky messages and constantly adjusts her tactics to see which produce the best results.

Wouldn't this kind of "campaign thinking" work as well in hospital where you are trying to reduce infections as it would for a political candidate? Wouldn't this work just as well for a mid-manager trying to strengthen accountability? Or for a CEO reorganizing a company?

There are three essential elements to campaign thinking: (1) You focus on the long-term results, not the quick wins. And you don't allow yourself to be derailed by petty stuff. Informed, yes; derailed, no. (2) You keep in mind that the campaign is separate from you. If someone doesn't like what you are doing, they are attacking the campaign, not you. You can't afford to get hooked into a pitched battle of egos. If you can stay emotionally neutral, you'll achieve the third essential element: (3) flexibility. Flexibility means you can change tactics without changing your goal.

If you can stay focuses on long term results, don't get too emotionally invested, and above all remain flexible, they you will have a very hard time failing. Because you're a failure only when you stop trying.

 

15 September 2008

Watch what they do...not what they say

When you ask someone to do something, do you get whining and complaining? This seems to be an almost universal response when people are asked to do something new or different.

There are many reasons people respond with complaints, but my advice to you is: Don't let it get to you!

What I mean is, don't let yourself get drawn into their whining. In fact, take a breath and a step back instead. That's their stuff, not yours. While you can empathize with them, don't take on their pain.

After all, you are focused on getting results. And, you may get those results even though folks are complaining. Watch what they are doing. Are they getting on board even as they complain?

If you "feel their pain" too much, you'll get discouraged. If you hold their feelings at a distance and watch their behavior, you'll often see the change in behavior you want. And that will be very encouraging.

 

15 September 2008

Why be the bad guy?

Have you ever found yourself in the position of trying to cajole or coerce someone into action? Maybe by giving a speech, issuing orders, or even making threats?

How's that worked for you? If you're like most folks, not very well. In fact, that kind of behavior not only fails to get you what you want (action) but it also undermines your relationship with that person, making them less likely to help you out in the future.

Instead, try "using the clock." This is an old facilitation technique where you remind a group that they are running out of time to make a decision. Rather than exhorting them to act, you just remind them of the rapidly diminishing time. They can see the clock themselves; they can see time passing. The clock becomes the enemy, not you. All you are doing is focusing their attention on the time remaining.

This same strategy can be used in an influence situation. Rather than tell someone to do something for you, let them directly experience the need or deadline. Share with them the e-mail from the boss. Bring them to the meeting. Let them experience how it feels to be the customer. Show them the data showing that performance is dropping.

You stay off to the side, helping them interpret what they are seeing, but not getting in their way. Let them get their arms around the problem, and then talk with them about what to do.

This method will help you get what you want with less wear-and-tear on you and your relationship with the other person. In fact, this technique will help strengthen and develop your relationship so that it will be easier next time.

 

31 August 2008

The importance of being gracious

Can you accept any expression of thanks, a compliment, an offer of help without minimizing or dismissing it?

For many people, it's really, really hard. It seems almost painful to hear a word of thanks or praise. Others seem unable to tolerate being helped.

Well, frankly, get over it! If you want to be successfully influencing other people, you've got to be able to accept their overtures toward you. You can't just dispense thank yous without being willing to accept them. If you reject, dismiss or ignore someone's expression of their positive regard, you risk offending them and hurting your ability collaborate with them in the future.

When they thank you, compliment you, offer you help, they expect to see their offer touch you. You got to let it touch you, or they'll be disappointed and may give up on you.

The more real, vulnerable, three-dimensional you seem to people, the more likely they are to want to help you and support you.

Now, there are folks out there that think anything less than a stoic response will be perceived as a weakness that others will exploit. Sure, there are those occasional manipulators you need to guard against, but the other 99% of folks want to make a real connection to you.

And, one way to stand out is to graciously accept thanks, praise and help.

For Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill said that if you want someone to get someone to like you, get they to do you a favor (instead of doing them a favor). If someone does you the favor of recognizing you, then don't screw it up by rejecting their gesture!

 

30 August 2008

Don't leave 'em in the dark!

How much do you really understand why someone does something? We are often left clueless about what they were reacting to, what pressures they were under. Hell, we often don't even know why a decision had to be made.

Most of us make the mistake of assuming that other folks perceive the context, the world the same way we do. They should "know" why we do things and understand that we made the best choice possible. We assume they have all the information we do. But, alas, they don't.

A cute experiment illustrates this point. People were asked to tap out a familiar tune (like "Happy Birthday") by hitting a table with a pencil. Another person was asked to identify the tune. This experiment was repeated again and again with multiple folks, yet no one correctly guessed the tune being tapped out. The people doing the tapping figured it would be easy, but it wasn't!

You can't assume people have all the information you do, so you need to make a special effort to inform them about the context, trends, factors, whatever that you are taking into account when you take action.

And, as an influence leader, you can help educate folks about the context the people in charge (executives, boards, directors, etc.) are reacting to.

Hardly anyone takes the time to bring people up to speed, and it's a wonderful service to provide. People like to be enlightened. They won't forget it.