Arnold Schwarzenegger frame control: case study
As soon as I saw this, I thought "need to make a quick post about it".
I found it to be a great example of everyday power dynamics between two high-power people who think in terms of power dynamics, and don't want to lose any power and status.
Here it is:
Watch the clip before you read down!
See if you spot the crucial passages that tell you that these two were very focused on their personal power and status.
Now, let's see:
Interviewer: in one word and one word only how did a small-town boy from Austria become one of the most famous people on earth
The question is a task with rules attached.
And the repetition of the rule, the "one world only", made it more power-taking to Arnold.
It's as if he's stressing out the rule that he's imposing on him and that he should abide to.
That rule limits Arnold's freedom to choose how to tell his own story, and it's a high-investment demand since Arnold is supposed to think it over to summarize it all in just one word.
So:
Arnold: why do you want me to say in one word
LOL, great move.
That tells you Arnold he's a high-power man: he's rejecting the request with a "send it back to the sender" approach.
Then:
Interviewer: (looks up) one word only, Arnold (looks sideways, then smiles)
Bang:
This tells you the interviewer also cares about power and is actively managing the interaction for power as well.
In the beginning, he was searching for a reason, for a justification for his request.
THEN he quickly realizes he's the interviewer and doesn't have to (a good move since he'd lose ALL of his power if he justified, the whole interview would derail, and the interview would also be bad for all since low-power people make a poor job of interviewing high power people).
And notice how he re-states his frame:
low investment, straight repetition of the task, and looking sideways at Arnold.
Then he smiles to take some edge off, a good move, sub-communicating "it's all good, I'm not tasking you in a rude manner, we're joking around and still friendly, just remember that I make the rules though".
Arnold: I don't stay with your rules
Challenges the authority.
He rejects the power of the interviewer to set the rules.
Arnold doesn't want to jump through his hoops.
And he also knows that if he can't come up with one good word, he may lose a chance to make a good impression.
So instead of giving a bad reply, he chooses not to play by the interviewer's rules.
A great approach.
What happens next is that he does manage to find a single one-word that sounds smart and allows him to portray and maintain the image of the "hard-working, super-driven American dream type of guy", and he goes for it.
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback
Man, this was a great example of frame control while maintaining rapport.
Also when Schwarzenegger finds and repeats the one word "dream", he does (kind of) abide to the rule, which power protects the interviewer.
Then what he does is, essentially, to comment on his "one word" choice (bonus: waving it into a story that packs an emotional punch), and thus he's able to keep his frame that he "won't stay with his rules" (which he delivered very warmly).
My view is that Schwarzenegger wouldn't have lost any power if he had "stayed with the rules", and commenting on his choice exactly as he did still wouldn't have been out of place. So questioning the rules was an attempt at switching the power table, and that was very power taking to the interviewer (all the more with the audience's laughter), who is the natural authority in this scenario. The interviewer was very adept at taking his power back!
In the end, this was a power struggle without looking like a power struggle.
I have to watch this guy more!
Yes, exactly, it was a 10 seconds power struggle, that didn't even look like one on the surface (at least on the interviewer's side, Arnold's reaction was more direct and obvious).
On this one:
Quote from Kavalier on March 12, 2023, 2:47 pmMy view is that Schwarzenegger wouldn't have lost any power if he had "stayed with the rules", and commenting on his choice exactly as he did still wouldn't have been out of place. So questioning the rules was an attempt at switching the power table, and that was very power taking to the interviewer (all the more with the audience's laughter), who is the natural authority in this scenario. The interviewer was very adept at taking his power back!
I think what happened there is that he was taken aback by the question.
It's as if someone asked you: describe your career/dream/values in one word.
Or if someone asked me "describe PU in one word".
Theoretically, we should be the top expert in those topics, so people may expect us to know how to answer, and how to answer well.
But if we never thought about a single word description, we'd be at a loss and unable to answer well.
If we still executed fast and came up with a mediocre one-word, then we may sell ourselves a lot shorter and do a disservice to ourselves.
So rather than coming up with a mediocre single word and doing himself a disfavor, Arnold decided to challenge the rule.
In that sense, I think it was a good move and I'd have done the same.
May be not such a direct challenge, but a smoother one to accomplish the same goal.
For example:
Interviewer: Describe PU in one single word
Me: Wow, that's such a challenging question. PU is truly a revolutionary self-development program that it may be difficult to describe it in one single word. So until I may settle on one single word, we'll have to use a few more I'm afraid (smile)
Basically, avoid a direct challenge, but still do not execute.
---
(Book a call) for personalized & private feedback