Influence Without Authority. Cohen Allan R.

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ The potential threat of your setting fires causes them to burn you first.

      Another reason for accentuating the positive is that peers and superiors may be stronger, with at least as many resources for retaliation as you have, which heightens the potential dangers of a spitting contest. They may salivate at the chance to show who is tougher. Positive expectations, on the other hand, create an atmosphere making win-win outcomes more likely. Much of what transpires after you make a request depends on not only how well you speak to the person's needs but also how much the person trusts you – a product of your past actions and the extent to which the person views you as a good corporate citizen.

      And don't forget the future. Since people often come back in other roles, assume the possibility of finding mutual objectives. Should the assumption later prove to be untrue, you can fall back on other strategies and assumptions.

      Self-Created Barriers to Influencing

We have described a straightforward model for diagnosing what to do and executing it to achieve influence. Over the years, we have taught many people to use this model successfully. But we have also observed many failed efforts at each stage of the model, whether or not the person was aware of using it. Either the person desiring influence manages to make things worse, gives up prematurely, or doesn't even try out of frustration from anticipated failure. Before subsequent chapters explain how to use the important parts of the model, here are the most common ways that people block their own effectiveness at each stage. Table 2.3 can serve as warnings to monitor yourself when trying to make things happen.

Table 2.3 Common Self-Created Barriers to Influencing

Barrier: Not Assuming the Other Person Is at Least a Potential Ally

      Failure to think positively about people who are difficult to influence is perhaps the deadliest self-created trap. It usually starts when a request is turned down. You want something clearly important to you that the other person can deliver. Sometimes you follow this with a second request and, if you are really determined, a third. Few people can be turned down two to three times without becoming convinced that something is fundamentally wrong with the other person. (Psychologists call this attribution.)8 The person has a defect of character, motives, or intelligence, or is a “perfect representative of that miserable group of incompetents from (the offending group).” Even when the negative attribution isn't spoken out loud (“Just another empty suit from marketing.” “Another engineering nerd.” “A numbers-obsessed shark from finance.” “A soft-headed bleeding heart from HR.” “A green eyeshade accountant who doesn't have the personality to be an actuary.”), it gets communicated.

      Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.

      Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».

      Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.

      Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.

      1

      By their very nature, models are simplified abstractions from reality, highlighting what is important and needs attention. Reality is usually messier, especially people with their differing perceptions, feelings, and assumptions. In any given instance, you may have to make adjustments and inferences, but a good model helps sort things out. Our influence model takes what social scientists had previously treated as descriptive – the presence of reciprocity among people – and makes it prescriptive and proactive. Combined with our

1

By their very nature, models are simplified abstractions from reality, highlighting what is important and needs attention. Reality is usually messier, especially people with their differing perceptions, feelings, and assumptions. In any given instance, you may have to make adjustments and inferences, but a good model helps sort things out. Our influence model takes what social scientists had previously treated as descriptive – the presence of reciprocity among people – and makes it prescriptive and proactive. Combined with our research in organizations, the model breaks into steps what often is just taken for granted or feels overwhelming.

2

This inscription from a statue called Mantiklos Apollo was cited by Janet Tassel in “Mighty Midgets,” Harvard Magazine (May/June, 1989).

3

Alvin Gouldner, “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement,” American Sociological Review 25 no. 2 (1960): 161–78.

4

Gresham M. Sykes, Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison (New York: Atheneum, 1969).

5

Adam M. Grant, Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success (New York: Viking 2013).

6

Gary Yukl and J. Bruce Tracy, “Consequences of Influence Tactics Used with Subordinates, Peers, and the Boss,” Journal of Applied Psychology 77, no. 4 (1992): 525–35.

7

The concept of exchange is central to this book and will be given detailed treatment in subsequent chapters. We draw on some of the classic literature: George C. Homans, “Social Behavior as Exchange,” American Journal of Sociology 66 no. 6 (1958): 597–606; Peter M. Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964); Peter M. Blau, Bureaucracy in Modern Society (New York: Random House, 1956); and Peter M. Blau, The Dynamics of Bureaucracy 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963).

8

We use our version of attribution theory throughout the book. The theory was reported in H. H. Kelley, Attribution in Social Interaction (Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 1971) and F. Heider, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958).

СКАЧАТЬ