Control or Influence---What Shall It Be?

Our lives are often spent trying to make our desires come out exactly as we want. A futile effort, especially since it may involve attempting to control others, an interaction or relationship dead-end. Yet there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to obtain an outcome in a conversation. Like conflict itself, persuasion is normal. Both can be carried out poorly or well.

None of us likes being controlled, and we resist the manipulation. In the post titled “What’s Wrong With ‘No Borders’”? I gave examples of devious methods boundary invaders use to control others, such as anger, guilt trips and a victim posture. Boundary invaders MUST HAVE their outcome, justifying repellant and counter-productive tactics. And adding to the unique interpersonal challenges around control, societal uncertainty pushes us all the more to get what we can from others.

You can easily spot a conversation controller. He asks no questions. If he does, the questions will be attacking and inquisitional, loudly voiced and often accompanied by sarcasm and anger. Having THE answers, what is there to know? Most often, though, the controller avoids questions and deluges his opponent non-stop with anything that will aid him to win, regardless of accuracy or relevance. A controller will concede nothing. There is no point, no matter how valid, that deserves anything other than attack. Counter-punching at its worst! But even without overt hostility, an adversarial, “I-win, you-lose” style means nothing positive will come from the exchange.

Although we might deny it, most of us at least occasionally act out the controller. We continue this in spite of the lousy outcomes until we learn there’s another way.

“Influence” conversations are very different, even though they arise out of the same conditions as adversarial ones---two people disagreeing about something, and each desiring something from the other. But with influence, there is no manipulation in which one party loses while the other gains. At least one of the parties recognizes the interpersonal dangers inherent in a difference of view. She changes how she interacts with the other, who is usually primed for a knock-down, drag-out match. She manages the interaction for the positive benefit of both, ensuring that her desire for a particular outcome does not depend on the other person losing something. Critically, she gives up the needs to win, change or punish the other person, all of which will produce resistance and hostility. In Zen terms, she is not attached to an outcome. She sees that if she wants to influence the other, she cannot pose a threat. Her actions will more likely be indirect than direct, including the removal of all unhelpful non-verbal cues.

A client who owned a number of businesses once told me about a potentially volatile interaction with a staff member who stormed into his office and angrily shouted, “What is this crap about transferring me to another department without even talking to me?” Instead of following the employee’s lead and starting a screaming match, my friend used influence. Anger or fear meant only bad outcomes, so control of his emotions and actions was vital. He remained seated, consciously removing all adverse non-verbal signals and adding only beneficial ones---he relaxed his body, softened his voice, and spoke normally but a little slower than usual. He calmly asked the employee to sit and tell him what was going on. Apparently expecting a battle and not getting one, the employee was a bit taken aback, a questioning look in his eyes. He sat down, but was on the edge of the chair and still visibly upset.

My friend asked again what was going on. The employee said that another employee told him about the intended transfer. After thanking the employee, which further calmed him, my friend told him that no such transfer was in the works. The employee sat back, embarrassed, and stumbled through an apology. A potentially unpleasant interaction was avoided. Once the employee’s issue was resolved, my friend did deal with the employee’s aggressiveness and anger.

My friend recognized immediately that the first thing he needed to do was assist the employee in calming, but he knew that saying something like, “Calm down” would only make things worse. Instead, he used non-verbal cues to signal receptivity and safety. At no point did my friend interrupt or try to counter the employee’s incorrect view. Beyond the calming his goal was to understand. Only then could he properly deal with the issue, in terms of both content and behavior. My friend wisely allowed the employee to get his story out and dealt with before bringing up his issue of how the employee initially addressed him.

Although this example occurred in the workplace, the same influence technique can be used at home with family or friends. Failure to control hidden agendas or strong emotions will be readily apparent to the spouse or life partner, and those will get all the focus. What is said is no longer part of the conversation, even if it looks like it on the surface. The interaction will be all about one person’s emotions overwhelming the other’s, a nasty but common occurrence.

There are critical influence lessons for all of us from this story, even if persuasion is not involved.

·       The first person to bring up an issue has the floor, with no interruptions, denials, or counter-punching.

·       The listener has the job of gaining clarity and understanding (not necessarily agreement), and only that.

·       The listener must maintain control of emotions and behavior, and be acutely aware of  non-verbal signals that can obstruct or enhance the conversation, choosing the helpful ones.

·       Understanding is best accomplished by fully attentive, non-judgmental listening, and by the use of carefully phrased, non-inquisitional, questions.

·       The listener must assist the speaker in reaching some resolution, if only partial or temporary, before bringing up his/her concerns, if any.

·       When it is the listener’s turn to raise a concern or issue, she must maintain the same non-attached, non-emotionally driven posture as when listening.

This post can be coupled with the recent one entitled “Conversations: Restrictive and Expansive,” offering a prescription for healthy conflict interactions.