Remedying Power Protecting After Going Too Far

Power that lasts, calibrates.

As we’ve said, the best ways to lose social capital, lose friends, and make enemies, is to try to overpower people all the time.

The reason is obvious: over-dominance disempowers people. And most people, and especially the higher value ones, don’t enjoy being disempowered.

So socially effective leaders take corrective actions to re-empower others when they realize that they have been too aggressive or too dominant.

Look at this example:

Lucio: (Being a bit too forceful, and overly critical of a guy who was just a beginner) You’re doing it all wrong, show more confidence like this!

(keep in mind the environment, too: Toastmasters is supposed to be a place where people build each other up and where the best form of feedback is considered to be 80% stressing the good, 20% on “what to improve”. I focused on the negatives only)

Audience: (Pause, then nervous laughter, then gathering speed)
Lucio: (Realizes he was being too aggressive and disempowering, so laughs along with the audience, taking the edge off and re-framing himself as a friendly force) Got it? (turns his own forceful delivery into a joke)
Audience: yeah
Lucio: thank you (covert power move, “thank you for following me”, maintains my frame as the leader / teacher). So do it, next time (re-asserts his initial message as valid, but with a far warmer attitude)
(interacts again with the audience, rebuilds rapport, then keeps on going)

This was a case of too much dominance, too little warmth, and came across as overly critical.

I don’t mind being overly critical to make a point, but it’s still a good idea to rein in it back later. This time, I ended on an aggressive note, and that had left people disoriented.

Some more confident folks in the audience smiled, probably think “damn, that was tough”, and a few followed.

At that point, I could have easily held on to my frame of “yes, you were unconfident, and I’m just telling you the truth”.
But what for?
To beat people down?
That wouldn’t have helped them internalize the lesson, and wouldn’t help my case as a teacher/leader.

And think about it: how would have I come across, had I not laughed?
As stiff, stuck up, thin-skinned and more hell-bent on “winning” than on relating and helping people improve.

So I followed their lead instead. I did lose some power, but “losing” power was the best way to give them back power, and so it was by far the best course of action.
I chose to see the irony myself and joined them.

The laughter helped me keep a good rapport with the audience.
But as the person delivering feedback, I also needed to reclaim the “authority” position, and even with the “humor frame”, I still maintain the authority position of the one providing valuable feedback.

I deliver the “got it?” line with the unspoken irony of the “bossy” host, followed by the “so do it next time” which, even if jokingly, also shows that I am not justifying or backtracking from my role.

In a way, this was pacing and leading as well.
Pace their mood & humor, and then lead again.

To Break the Rules, Frame It As Exceptional & “For The People”

This is a good one.

It’s based on the idea that people don’t like bullies who take things through sheer force.

BUT, people are also happy to close one eye -or both- when it’s a charming person who breaks the rules.

That’s why Clinton could bend the rules without getting much social blowback while Trump is socially pilloried and is constantly battling the press (note: this lesson was originally written when Trump was president).
Clinton was charming, and he always made a show of respecting both the people and the democratic process.
And that’s why he could ultimately also break more rules.

See this real-life example here:

Woman: (sees the red card that that her time is up) Yes, I see that
(People laugh at her display of dominance. Displays of dominance often elict laughter from people)

Up until here all is well.
As a matter of fact, she’s displaying confidence and dominance. If she plays her cards well, she can gain status and also end up with win-win.

Woman: (with an attitude of someone who couldn’t care less of going over time) I just want to give this feedback because this is very important to her  (looks at the time with an annoyed expression, as if to say “get off my case”)

Here she loses an opportunity. She could have re-empowered the timer and the audience by saying something like “this can be helpful to her, so I want to make sure she gets it

Woman: (keeps explaining at low-speed, as if she couldn’t care less of taking more time)

Another missed opportunity: she could have gone a bit faster here, to sub-communicate respect for people’s time -and for the rules-

Now compare with my delivery:

Lucio: Yes, I see that, my time is up (paces reality).
I respect that (protects the power of the timer, and of the audience).
Just one more minute (exception-seeking frame) to deliver some more value to you (frames his rule breaking as for the people)

Proceeds to break the rules while everyone loves him for breaking them. As circumstantial evidence, the audience voted him as the “best evaluator of the evening”.

The woman sees the red card signaling that her time is over. But she publicly scorns it and keeps on going as if she were above the rules.
Her action sub-communicate: “to hell the rules, I’m above them” (and you guys are not).

It’s dominant, very dominant.
But as we’ve said many times, over-dominance often builds resentment and erodes your social power (and power) in the long run. It’s far more powerful to do what you want without alienating others.
Or better yet, to do what you want while also persuading others to join your team, on your side.

In this specific case, to flaunt the rules effectively you want to look like you respect the rule -and the people behind those rules-. Then people allow you more latitude because, first, you seem a pro-social person who respects them.
And second, it feels like this is just an exception.

And of course, you notice the basics of power here at play, again.
Her delivery is confrontational.
It’s “me, for her, but against you all” (confrontational frame)
My delivery is within a frame of “me, for her, with her, but also with you all, and for you all” (collaborative frame, and “servant leadership” style).

Try to take a guess who was the most listened to, most beloved, but also more respected and more accepted and wanted as a leader?
Easy to answer, right?
Be more like the man in that video, power protect, frame it as win-win and, between us, you can break all the rules you want.

If You Get Passive-Aggressive Criticism: Ignore It

Same ignoring technique, applied to leadership:

if someone seeks to criticize without having the courage of saying so directly, ignore it.

First of all, because you don’t want to reward covert power moves and passive-aggressiveness.
If you address it, you send the message that passive aggression and covert power moves are OK, and you don’t want to cultivate that environment.

Furthermore, if you address you may create the reality of the passive-aggressive accusation (ie.: you thread expand).

Seen an example here:

But take note of the reaction: it’s an important sign when people laugh at the criticism. It means they either agree or they have some gripe against you. 

If the message above was meant to be a criticism of my leadership style, I expect it to come to me directly and honestly, not as a joke in a public forum.
In these cases, you should probably either ignore it, treat is a joke or take it offline with the person who’s leveling the criticism.

If you are not sure about the effectiveness of your leadership though you must also take it as potentially important feedback.