Control vs. Influence: Stop Asking For “Buy-In”

Written by Mike Shapiro | | March 29, 2016

Your power to control is really quite limited, but your influence is practically infinite. You change every situation the moment you step into it. It’s really about being aware of your influence and how you use it.

Years ago, I met Bob Esperti and Renno Peterson who were writing a book at the time, and they give me the manuscript to read on the plane. It’s gonna sound like a cliche, but its premise completely changed my perspective on approaching others. Here it is:

If you want to influence someone else, you must first be completely open to being influenced.

“Going for buy-in” is perhaps the most corrupt and underhanded move in any business interaction. Its motivation is purely selfish and assumes you already know what’s best and that the other person’s role is just to listen and go along. It ignores the golden rule in all of its versions.

Read their influence premise again and let its meaning sink in for a minute: The price of admission to any interaction is that, going-in, you adopt a sincere position of being open to being influenced by that person.

Imagine how that can change things: The usual premise of the sales call is “I want to get you to buy something I’m selling.” But suppose HE’S selling, too! (Isn’t everyone?) That means you’re both saying: “Hey, I’d like to tell you about my idea and to “get your buy-in.” Each of you winds up pitching to a prospect — in this case, each other — without really having a conversation. Suppose his ideas are better? Are you open to evaluating them on their own merits and being convinced? Are you open to being influenced by him? To changing your mind?

Whenever anyone comes to my door, eager to sell me their ideas, I tell them they are welcome to come in and tell me their story on the condition that they give me equal time to tell them mine, and that they commit to being as open to being convinced by me as they expect me to be open to being convinced by them. Most of the time, they cheerfully agree, and we have a great conversation.

I don’t know whether anyone actually persuades anyone of anything during these talks, but the exchange of ideas is always productive in the sense that it causes all of us to think about things a little differently afterward, and I’d like to believe everyone benefits from the opportunity to see what it’s like on the other side of the table for a change.

Remember Dilbert? Dilbert thinks because he works for an organization he considers “dumb” and for a “dumb” boss that everything he does is going to be “dumb.” He’s condemning himself to a work-lifetime of dumbness — the role of a victim — before he even starts, letting his helpless and hopeless assessment of the overwhelming outside forces over which he thinks he has no control give him a lame excuse — in advance — for his own poor performance. He’s oblivious to the fact that his lousy defeatist attitude ruins it for him and everyone around him, and he ends up actually causing himself and a lot of other people to underperform.

I’m not talking about simply “having a negative attitude.” I wish it were that benign! It’s about a blindness to the reality of the situation and potential influence on it, and the consequent failure to act effectively in that situation.

There’s really no room for a Dilbert in any organization that’s going to get positive results, and if you are guilty of any Dilbert-like attitudes and behaviors, drop them quickly. And if you see any Dilberts out there, advise them to do likewise.

When you state your beliefs, are you open to hearing what others have to say in response? Are you interested? Are you open to the possibility that they may say something that will change your mind? Even if no one responds, are YOU listening to what you’re saying? Are you evaluating what you just said with a critical ear, ready to re-think and re-tool your own views?