Influence in Action

by Craig Weber

  When Someone Isn’t Being Clear

  When people aren’t being clear, you can ask them questions to clarify their position. For example: “Bethany, maybe I’m a little slow, but I didn’t grasp your basic point, and I want to make sure I understand how you’re thinking about this. Do you like the idea or do you not?”

  When Someone Is Being Verbally Aggressive

  It may seem counterintuitive, but inquiry is a powerful way to deal with verbal hostility. Picture, for example, someone blurting out in a meeting: “You’re an idiot if you really think that’s a good idea!” This could easily send you flying out of the sweet spot. But if you’re on your conversational game, you might respond in a more curious, humble, and learning-focused manner: “Well, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time I’ve been an idiot. You seem to be seeing this very differently than I do, so help me out. What am I missing? What are you seeing that I’m not?”

  This is a powerful way to respond. You’re not only more likely to gain additional information; you’re also holding your colleague responsible for explaining their view. In a meeting with people using these skills, therefore, it’s harder for anyone to get away with a flippant, gruff, or sarcastic comment because someone will inquire and ask them to explain, but in a curious rather than a castigatory way. In this way, the skilled use of inquiry into an aggressive comment tends to de-escalate the encounter. People being aggressive are pushing their view, and when you respond by pulling more of their thinking into the conversation, it reduces their need to push so hard. “Look, I’m sorry I called you an idiot. That was terrible thing to say. But I still don’t like your idea.”

  “No problem,” you might then respond. “What specifically about my suggestion doesn’t work for you?”

  Steve demonstrated the power of doing this well. When Phil blurted out, “I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill,” Steve’s inquiry into that strong position helped him understand and evaluate it, but it also held Phil accountable for explaining it: “I don’t think I’m making a mountain out of a molehill, but maybe I’m missing something. What makes you say that? What are you seeing that I’m not?”

  When Someone Presents a View, But Fails to Explain It

  If a teammate puts forward a position but doesn’t show you how she got there, you can invite her thinking into the conversation. If you’re in a meeting and a colleague says, “I don’t think that’s the right thing to do,” for instance, you might say, “Shelly, you’ve obviously got a strong view on this issue. Take a minute or two and help us see why you’re feeling so adamant about it.” Or, “Can you take a minute and unpack that idea for me?”

  When Someone Smirks or Sighs

  Not all communication is verbal. Often a message comes in the form of a wink, a smirk, a roll of the eyes, a slamming down of a pen, a knowing glance, a sigh, a dismissive hand gesture, or a wince. You can treat these nonverbal forms of communication like an unexplained position and inquire into them:

  • You rolled your eyes at my suggestion. Is there anything about my idea or the way it’s being presented that doesn’t sit well with you? If there is, I’d be keen to hear about it.

  • Hey Rick, I notice you just snapped your pencil in half and threw it down on the table. I assume that means there is something about the idea you don’t like. If that’s the case, help us see what concerns you so much, especially if you think we’re missing something important.

  • I sensed a little hesitation in your response. Did I misread that? And if not, is there something about this decision that concerns you?

  Again, as you can see, getting away with a naked position, a snarky comment, an eye roll, or a belligerent remark is far less likely in a meeting when someone with high conversational capacity is present. This is because they’ll hold you accountable for explaining it—not to put you on the spot, or in a “gotcha” way, but in an authentic bid to understand it.

  It’s a Facilitative Tool

  Formally or informally, this underappreciated skill turns you into a powerful facilitator of learning. In my first book, Conversational Capacity, the story of Randy in the parent–teacher conference provides a perfect example. When he’s accused of grade retribution, rather than acquiesce or argue, he gets curious and asks: “You’ve said that I’m giving Julia grades as retribution for your wife’s relationship with the school. I’m curious, what signals are you seeing from me that lead you to think that’s what’s happening here?”4 Asking the parents to account for their claim serves the same two purposes I just outlined above: greater insight and understanding, and greater evidence and accountability.

  Listening

  Both curiosity skills, testing and inquiry, require genuine listening. This may seem obvious, but it’s not standard practice. If you’re like most people, “listening” is often little more than just waiting for your turn to talk, formulating your response, or daydreaming about something else entirely. But when you test and inquire in a sincerely curious way, you focus intently on the responses of others because they’re the best source of new information and insight.

  You cannot truly listen to anyone and do anything else at the same time.

  —M. SCOTT PECK

  In The Road Less Traveled, in a section titled “The Work of Attention,” M. Scott Peck provides an example of the discipline required for genuinely curious listening:

  Not long ago I attended a lecture by a famous man on an aspect of the relationship between psychology and religion in which I have long been interested. Because of my interest I had a certain amount of expertise in the subject and immediately recognized the lecturer to be a great sage indeed. I also sensed love in the tremendous effort that he was exerting to communicate, with all manner of examples, highly abstract concepts that were difficult for us, his audience, to comprehend. I therefore listened to him with all the intentness of which I was capable. Throughout the hour and a half he talked, sweat was literally dripping down my face in the air-conditioned auditorium. By the time he was finished I had a throbbing headache, the muscles in my neck were rigid from my effort at concentration, and I felt completely drained and exhausted. Although I estimated that I had understood no more than 50 percent of what this great man had said to us that afternoon, I was amazed by the large number of brilliant insights he had given me. Following the lecture, which was well attended by culture-seeking individuals, I wandered about through the audience during a coffee break listening to their comments. Generally, they were disappointed. Knowing his reputation, they had expected more. They found him hard to follow and his talk confusing. He was not as competent a speaker as they had hoped to hear. One woman proclaimed to nods of agreement, “He really didn’t tell us anything.”

  M. Scott Peck then describes the difference between his experience and that of many in the audience:

  In contradistinction to the others, I was able to hear much of what this great man said, precisely because I was willing to do the work of listening to him. I was willing to do this work for two reasons: one, because I recognized his greatness and that what he had to say would likely be of value; second, because of my interest in the field I deeply wanted to absorb what he had to say as to enhance my own understanding and spiritual growth. My listening to him was an act of love. I loved him because I perceived him to be a person of great value worth attending to, and I loved myself because I was willing to work on behalf of my growth. Since he was the teacher and I the pupil, he the giver and I the receiver, my love was primarily self-directed, motivated by what I could get out of our relationship and not what I could give him. Nonetheless, it is entirely possible that he could sense within his audience the intensity of my concentration, my attention, my love, and he may have been thereby rewarded. Love . . . is invariably a two-way street, a reciprocal phenomenon whereby the receiver also gives and the giver also receives.5

  Notice that M. Scott Peck describes listening as a deliberate, mindful act. You’re focusing your beam of attention on the other person an
d seeking value in what the person is trying to communicate.

  By far the most common and important way in which we can exercise our attention is by listening.

  —M. SCOTT PECK

  Listen Empathically

  With a curious mindset, you’re not just listening intellectually, you’re listening empathically. You’re not just tuned in to the logic of someone’s view. You’re also listening to how the words are being shared, and to the underlying sentiments, values, and convictions behind the words. You’re focusing your attention on the deeper messages being sent, not just the light stuff on the surface.

  Steve could sense in Phil, for example, not just his view of the situation but the concern behind it. Phil seemed sincere in his desire to create an open workspace, and in his view that it was working fairly well. Steve also noticed the frustration behind Phil’s attempt to shut down the conversation, and he tried to respond in a way that mirrored the emotional charge: “I’ll leave right now if you like. But can you at least tell me how I’m putting you between a rock and a hard spot? That’s not what I came in here to do.” That brilliant inquiry would not have been possible if Steve had not been listening with an empathetic ear.

  Collaborative Design: A Powerful Form of Inquiry

  When it comes to making decisions about how to manage people, orchestrate change, deliver feedback, improve the working relationship between people or groups, run effective meetings or any other activity that depends on people working together effectively, you have only two options for making those choices: guess or ask. That’s it. You can either unilaterally impose your choices and then cross your fingers and hope you guessed well, or you can collaborate with others to design the smartest way forward.

  When you employ collaborative design—what I referred to in my first book as joint control—you’re opting to ask. You do this by inquiring into the most effective way to work with another person or group to achieve a particular objective. When you adopt this approach, you’re in your mental workshop pooling and integrating the relevant perspectives so you can make the most intelligent choices about how to proceed.*

  In the second chapter, I provided a short example of how I used this form of inquiry to help Steve, Phil, and their team find a solution to the messy predicament they were facing. “The basic question this team needs to answer is this: ‘How can Phil meet his boss’s expectations with flying colors, but do it in a way that keeps each one of you coming into his office with all the information he needs to run this business with his eyes wide open?’ So, to find an answer to that question let me ask you another one: To help him do a better job of striking that important balance, what would you like more of and less of from Phil?”

  More Of? Less Of?

  As that last example illustrates, when you’re working with others to collaboratively design a way to improve a relationship, process, action, or service, the basic question you are asking is: “What do we need more of and less of to achieve X?” Here are a few examples:

  • What do we need more of and less of to make this process far less cumbersome and far more efficient?

  • As your manager, what do you need more of and less of from me so I’m doing a better job of helping you bring your A-game to this project?

  • As one of our most valued customers, we’re thrilled when you say you’re very impressed with our service. But to avoid getting complacent we’d like to ask you a simple question: What do you need more of and less of from us so we can push our customer service to an even higher level?

  • What does the business need more of and less of from the HR function so we can help you meet your strategic challenges in an even more focused and potent way?

  Additional Points

  It’s Harder Than It Seems

  On the surface, inquiring into the views of others appears to be a simple skill that, when performed well, helps protect you from your confirmation bias. But don’t let this fool you. It’s far harder than it seems. When someone contradicts you, it’s tempting to shut down, acquiesce, or jump back to your position, often with a little extra heat. “Maybe you didn’t grasp what I’m suggesting. Let me run it by you again. Try to keep up this time.” But this defensive reaction reinforces your confirmation bias and limits learning because it fails to play what’s missing—the thinking behind the person’s contradiction.

  You Might Need to Explain Why

  People may misinterpret your motives when you inquire into their point of view, especially if it’s a new behavior. They might skeptically assume, for example, that it’s just a manipulative strategy, or you’re trying to draw their thinking into the open so you can attack it. To guard against such defensive reactions, you can proactively disabuse others of any erroneous interpretations about your motives by explaining why you’re inquiring into their ideas:

  • I genuinely want to see how you’re looking at this issue because you might be seeing things I’m missing. I just wanted to let you know that in case I’m coming across differently. I’m not trying to lawyer you or to set you up for an argument.

  • I’m asking you these questions because I really want to understand your view. And if I’m sending any signals that suggest otherwise, hit the pause button and point it out.

  It Manifests Authentic Curiosity

  This is another point that seems obvious, but it’s worth stressing. Inquiry, as I’m describing it here, is far more than just asking questions. Effective inquiry is always grounded in curiosity, in a genuine desire to learn. But it’s all too easy to ask leading questions that are merely cloaked positions:

  • Do think maybe there’s a better way you could do that?

  • Do you think using an agenda in our meetings might help?

  • I’m wondering if it would help if you did X . . . ?

  • Are you wearing that to the dinner?

  Even more destructive are the pugnacious comments and arrogant questions that push people away from the table, block alternative viewpoints, and shut down disagreement. Sadly, these conversational capacity killers, which can include everything from a poor test to a lousy inquiry to a dismissive comment, are far too common in the workplace:

  • I’ve explained how this looks from an intelligent perspective. What does it look like from yours?

  • I thought you were smarter than that.

  • If any of you disagree with me, do a little homework, get your facts straight, and then we’ll talk again.

  • Are you stuck on stupid?

  • “Tell us your thinking and we’ll show you where you are mixed up.”6

  • You don’t really think that, do you?

  • Really?

  • “You don’t know what to look for—you are not a doctor.”7

  • I’ve forgotten more about this subject than you’ll ever know, and here’s what I think we should do. You’re welcome.

  • “I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am.”8

  • Look, I’m not trying to be condescending here. (That means I’m not trying to talk down to you.)

  • “Seriously? How old are you?”9

  • Did your mom drop you as a child?

  • WTF?

  What the Authentic, Learning-Focused Inquiry Is Not

  It should be obvious by now, but for emphasis, here is a short list of things that an inquiry is not:

  • It is not an inquisition.

  • It is not lawyering.

  • It is not a position masked with a leading question.

  • It is not a setup for a smackdown or a “gotcha” moment.

  • It is not a shallow “going through the motions” activity in which you’re inquiring merely because you know you’re supposed to, not because your heart is really in it.

  Why the Curiosity Skills Matter

  “People gain power,” says Dacher Keltner, “as a result of small, everyday behaviors: by speaking up first, offering a possible answer to a problem, being first to assert an opinion, freein
g up everyone’s thinking by throwing out a wild suggestion, question, or humorous observation that gets the creative juices flowing.”10 You can also gain power by sparking a new insight, by starting an effective conversation about an issue that people are avoiding, by bridging a barrier, by pulling a meeting back from the brink of argument, or by helping someone struggling to get their idea into a conversation.

  Our opportunity for influence increases when we are open and ask great questions, listen to others with receptive minds, and offer playful ideas and novel perspectives.

  —DACHER KELTNER

  If your power in a conversation is determined by your influence, the two behaviors we’ve just explored are potent skills. They give you the ability to spark more insight by shaping conversations in a more constructive and learning-focused direction. Here are a few final points about these skills.

  Help Others Speak Up

  Both curiosity skills—testing your own views and inquiring into the views of others—allow you to help other people get their perspective into a conversation. By testing and inquiring you take more active responsibility for helping others be more candid by inviting them to share their ideas.