Influence in Action

by Craig Weber

  When you’re in your workshop your mind is open to fresh ideas and perspectives. You’re not just sitting around passively willing to accept a new view if it happens to knock on the door and present itself; you’re actively seeking them out, eagerly pursuing more expansive and effective ways of making sense of the world around you. But an open mind is not a gullible mind. With this mindset, you’re intelligently open-minded, not uncritically open-minded.10 For a perspective to influence your view it must pass muster.

  What determines what you let in and what you don’t? Evidence. Smart thinking is evidence-based thinking.

  When you are studying any matter, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts.

  —BERTRAND RUSSELL

  So, with this mindset you’re not just carelessly, casually, or lazily open-minded. You’re critically open-minded. You’re constantly vetting ideas and evaluating input.

  Critical thinking, a form of intellectual self-discipline, helps you identify where your biases, ego-needs, and blind spots distort how you’re making sense of an issue or a situation. In your workshop—focused on learning, getting smarter, and making better decisions—you’re striving to get outside your own head so you can look at the world in a clearer fashion. You’re evaluating and critiquing your mental models in order to sharpen and refine them.

  You pay a steep price when this ability is weak. In an academic research article with an interesting subject and an unorthodox title: “On the Reception and Detection of Pseudo-Profound Bullshit,” several researchers describe the problem with having an open mind unencumbered by critical thinking: “Our results suggest that this tendency—which resembles a general gullibility factor—is a component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.”11

  The authors also draw an interesting distinction between types of open-mindedness . . . reflexive or uncritical open-mindedness, in which a person is accepting of information but doesn’t pause to evaluate inherent conflicts or other features, and reflective or active open-mindedness, in which a person seeks information for the purpose of critical thinking.12

  What? You mean that an open mind without a critical filter will soon overflow with flawed, weak, claptrap thinking? What a surprise. The good news is that you can avoid this fate by adopting a more active and reflective approach in which you’re curious and open-minded but you also sport a fully functional “Baloney Detection Kit,” the set of critical thinking tools championed by Carl Sagan. (I’ll bet that’s not what he originally wanted to call it!) Focused on thinking more clearly, you’re actively weighing what you hear, sorting what’s useful from what’s not, what’s accurate from what isn’t, what’s nonsense from what’s really going on. You’re as unwilling to accept an idea simply because it conflicts with your own perspective as you’re willing to accept one simply because it reinforces it.

  You’re as unwilling to accept an idea simply because it conflicts with your own perspective as you’re willing to accept one simply because it reinforces it.

  A great example of someone applying critical open-mindedness to a serious problem is American physicist Richard Feynman and the role he played in the investigation of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. In a public meeting, members of the Rogers Commission, the body appointed to investigate the disaster and its causes, were talking with people from Morton-Thiokol and NASA about the events the evening before the launch of Challenger. In that conversation, Morton-Thiokol managers asserted that the opinions of the seal experts about whether or not to launch were evenly divided. The decision was, the way they were framing it, a coin toss.

  But while other members of the commission were ready to uncritically accept the managers’ assertions, Feynman was not. Here’s his account of the incident:

  It struck me that the Thiokol managers were waffling. But I only knew how to ask simpleminded questions. So I said, “Could you tell me, sirs, the names of your four best seals experts, in order of ability?”

  “Roger Boisjoly and Arnie Thompson are one and two. Then there’s Jack Kapp and, uh . . . Jerry Burns.”

  I turned to Mr. Boisjoly, who was right there, at the meeting. “Mr. Boisjoly, were you in agreement that it was okay to fly?”

  He says, “No,I was not.”

  I ask Mr. Thompson, who was also there.

  “No, I was not.”13

  When asked about the views of the other two experts, who were not in the room, it turns out one was unsure about whether or not to launch and the other was probably a yes. “So,” Feynman said to the Morton-Thiokol managers, “of the four, we have one ‘don’t know,’ one ‘very likely yes,’ and the two who were mentioned right away as being the best seal experts, both said no. So this ‘evenly split’ stuff was a lot of crap. The guys who knew the most about the seals—what were they saying?” Under more curious but critical investigation it was clear the decision to launch was not a coin toss.

  By-Products

  When you’re working in your mental workshop you’re not just producing smart choices and effective action. The process also generates precious by-products: commitment, confidence, and trust.

  Commitment

  Making informed and effective choices is your North Star. A choice, however, is unlikely to be effective if people don’t buy into it. With low internal commitment you may get compliance (if you’re lucky), but you’re unlikely to get people’s A-game. And why bother putting a lot of work into making a smart decision if no one will raise a finger to put it into action?

  If you don’t like your job, you don’t go on strike. You just go in every day and do it really half-assed—that’s the American way.

  —HOMER SIMPSON

  The good news is that an invaluable by-product of the workshop process is internal commitment, or buy-in, to the choices that do get made, which greatly increases the likelihood they’ll be implemented effectively. When people feel committed to a decision, they’re more likely to roll up their sleeves to help with implementation and far less likely to open a bag of Corn Nuts.*

  Research shows that people feel more commitment to a decision if it meets two standards:

  1. Respect for the process. “Studies show that people are willing to accept an unfavorable outcome if they believe the decision-making process was sound,” writes HBR.com’s Amy Gallo. “This is often called ‘procedural fairness.’ You might say to your employees, for example: ‘Here’s the process that was followed, the people we spoke with, and where things came out.’” 14 It’s not about agreement, in other words, as much as it is about a process that is clear, fair, and rigorous. People need to see that the decision was meritocratic rather than self-serving or politically convenient.

  2. Involvement in the process. People want to feel their thinking has been taken into account. People feel more ownership for a choice if they feel they’ve had some say in the matter, that they’ve been listened to, and that their point of view is playing a useful role.

  When people respect the process by which a decision is reached, and when they feel part of that process, they tend to have more buy-in and less resentment. They’re more likely to give the decision a thumbs-up than a middle finger.

  Confidence

  Another important by-product is greater confidence in your decisions and choices. This confidence flows from two things:

  1. Because the issue has been considered so rigorously, you have more confidence in the quality of the choice. As one manager told me: “I find that as my conversational capacity goes up, I’m way more confident in my decisions because I know I’m using the best thinking around the table to make them.”

  2. Because the higher internal commitment increases the likelihood people will bring their best efforts to the implementation, you have greater confidence it will be implemented effectively.

&
nbsp; Trust

  Your conversations are more purpose-driven than ego-driven, more focused on working with others to learn than on being right or comfortable, so your conversations cultivate more trust and respect. When you’re able to align your behavior with your intentions and act in a way that is candid yet curious, courageous yet humble, you’re viewed as more trustworthy and authentic. Such congruence and balance are impossible, however, if you lack the ability to recognize when your min and “win” tendencies threaten to separate your actions from your objectives. It is in this way that trust and conversational capacity are inextricably linked.

  To Sum Up

  The product of your mental workshop is clear thinking, and the process is learning. When you’re up against a tense situation or tough problem, rather than treat your mind like a temple to sanctify or a fort to protect, roll up your sleeves and treat it like a workshop to use. Recognizing you’re either dedicated to informed choice or willful ignorance, muster the discipline to focus on learning and start working on the issue.

  As you do this, your conversations will be less egotistical and more purposeful; less about looking good, feeling right, or avoiding emotional discomfort and more about making meaningful progress and constructive change. This learning-focused mindset will infuse your use of the candor and curiosity skills with authenticity. (I’d rather talk with someone who has this mindset in place but is a little rusty with the skills than someone who is using the skills but doesn’t really mean it.)

  Your job as a leader is to be right at the end of the meeting, not at the beginning of the meeting.

  —DAVID M. COTE

  Remember when you’re in your workshop, you’re not trying to create agreement but learning. You’re working hard to help whoever is making a decision to make the smartest decision possible. With this in mind, you refuse to accept the worldview that your mind hands you by constantly seeking to expand and improve it. In pursuit of insight, knowledge, and wisdom you’re always asking several important questions:

  • What is the problem we’re trying to solve?

  • What do I think we should do to address it? Why do I think this? And what am I seeing that others are missing?

  • What do others think about the problem and how to address it? What are they seeing that I’m missing?

  • What are we all missing? Do we have a collective blind spot?

  By asking questions like these, you acknowledge the choice between intelligence and ignorance, and choose to start the process of learning. And whether it’s to yourself or out loud to others, by saying “OK, let’s take this issue into the workshop” is a simple way to do just that.

  * I use quotations marks around the word to honor this observation of the mythologist Joseph Campbell: “There is no way you can use the word ‘reality’ without quotation marks around it.”

  * If this analogy doesn’t ring a bell, revisit Chapter 6 in Conversational Capacity.

  † See Chapter 7 in Conversational Capacity to review the concept of double-loop learning.

  * To be clear, the idea isn’t that these people are inherently unintelligent—they might be capable of brilliance—it’s that they’re using weak, sloppy, insular thinking. The point is that there is a fundamental difference between these two kinds of thinking, and if your goal is to make smart choices you first need to adopt a smart approach.

  * Don’t remember this reference? See pages 68–71 in Conversational Capacity.

  EXPANDING THE SWEET SPOT

  Eight More Balanced “Character-istics”

  To change old values . . . work at developing new values.

  —DOUGLAS LaBIER

  The “sweet spot” in a conversation is where candor and courage are balanced with curiosity and humility. It’s in this sweet spot where the best conversations occur, especially when you’re toiling in difficult circumstances, grappling with challenging issues, or working across tricky boundaries.

  When you’re in the sweet spot, you’re direct and clear about your own views, but you’re also keen to explore new ideas and divergent perspectives. But as Steve demonstrated, being honest and direct doesn’t just require candor; it can also take tremendous courage. If you’re to raise tough issues, speak hard truths, and confront brutal facts, you must marshal the gumption to speak up, even when your ideas are unpopular, inconvenient, or controversial.

  But because few things provoke defensiveness and hinder learning more effectively than arrogance, when you’re in the sweet spot you’re also intellectually humble. You make yourself vulnerable by testing your own perspectives and working hard to explore those of others. You’re more interested in making a difference than in making an impression. (And when you think about it, the best way to make an impression is by making a difference.) Your curiosity and humility, in other words, prevent you from coming across as just a candidly courageous asshole.1

  The Sweet Spot Expanded

  As I reflect on the people who’ve built their conversational capacity and used it to inspire constructive change, I realize that there’s more to it than just candor and courage balanced with curiosity and humility. There’s a larger suite of counterbalanced traits by which they strive to operate. Because these traits are all aspects of character, a better way to describe them is “character-istics.” In this chapter, I’ll share them with four main goals in mind:

  1. To provide an expanded suite of counterbalancing characteristics you can cultivate to build your conversational capacity.

  2. To create a deeper appreciation for why leadership is so hard and yet so precious.

  3. To reinforce the idea that in order to build healthier, more effective organizations, we need to become healthier, more effective people.

  4. To expand your notions about the personal work you must do if you’re to be effective in your leadership quest.

  What are these additional attributes? Here is a list:

  Let’s explore each pair of characteristics and the essential role they play when you’re trying to inspire and orchestrate meaningful change.

  Affirmative Realistic

  As I’ve helped people from all over the world build their capacity to work in the sweet spot as they engage the important issues they’re facing, the more I appreciate one characteristic that rides high above all others. None of the other aspects of mindset matter if it’s missing. What is this pivotal piece of mental software, you ask? It’s an affirmative bias: a willingness to focus on what can be done, as opposed to what can’t be done; to see the opportunities in a challenging situation, not just the limitations; and to adopt an optimistic approach to a messy predicament, rather than a pessimistic one.

  An affirmative bias is not just shallow positive thinking. It’s more than just faking a smile while discounting or denying the ugly aspects of the situation. With an affirmative bias your eyes are wide open. You’re keenly aware of the unwelcome nature of the predicament you’re facing, yet you’re confident in your ability to do something constructive about it. Even with a no-nonsense view of the hard realities you’re up against, you still adopt a mindset that says: “It’s possible I can do something productive here.” You’re passionate. You’re affirmative. You’re ready to take action. “Let’s roll up our sleeves and work hard to improve this screwed-up situation,” you say to yourself and to others, “and while we’re at it, let’s learn something along the way.” You’re adopting an attitude that says “yes” to the mess.2

  Optimistic people play a disproportionate role in shaping our lives. Their decisions make a difference; they are inventors, entrepreneurs, political and military leaders—not average people. They got to where they are by seeking challenges and taking risks.

  —DANIEL KAHNEMAN

  This dual focus is akin to a concept—“the Stockdale Paradox”—that Jim Collins made popular in his bestselling book Good to Great. This paradox is named after Vice Admiral James Stockdale, a former prisoner of war, who described the paradoxical mindset needed to sustain yourself th
rough intense difficulty: “Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties,” he says. “And at the same time confront the most brutal facts of your current reality.” This dual focus is key. Collins then asked Stockdale about the kind of people who didn’t survive. “Oh, that’s easy,” he said. “The optimists.”

  Oh, they were the ones who said, “We’re going to be out by Christmas.” And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, “We’re going to be out by Easter.” And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart.

  This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.3

  There are two reasons this aspect of the mindset is so essential: First, it determines your focus. It sets the filter by which you make sense of the world around you. With an Eeyore mindset, you focus on what’s impossible, on all the reasons things will fail. Your mind scans a situation looking for excuses, and they’re always easy to find. As Richard Bach put it, “argue for your limitations and sure enough, they’re yours.”4

  But with an affirmative bias, you intentionally dial into what’s possible. You hold the view that something useful can be done and that you can make a difference. Your mind scans the situations looking for opportunity. This is a radical and transformative filter by which to operate in life.

  Just because you’re naked

  doesn’t mean you’re sexy,

  Just because you’re cynical

  doesn’t mean you’re cool.

  —TOM ROBBINS