Chapter 6
Building Effective Relationships: The Art of Finding and Developing Your Allies

The stranger within my gate,

He may be true and kind,

But he does not talk my talk—

I cannot feel his mind.

I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,

But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,

They may do ill or well,

But they tell the lies I am wonted to,

They are used to the lies I tell;

And we do not need interpreters

When we go to buy and sell.

The men of my own stock,

Bitter bad they may be,

But, at least, they hear the things I hear,

And see the things I see;

And whatever I think of them and their likes

They think of the likes of me.

—Rudyard Kipling, “The Stranger”

Relationships Matter

It's often not difficult to build relationships with those you know well and with whom you share similar goals, values, and tastes. Their assumptions and ways of viewing the world are familiar. Their behavior, even when disagreeable, is predictable, and they can be influenced by known methods. But organizations are filled with “strangers,” those who view the world differently because they work for differing functions and managers; are a different sex, age, race, ethnicity, or country of origin; or have different training and experiences—because diverse expertise must be brought to bear on complex organizational problems. A wider range of people, backgrounds, and views is needed than in Kipling's time. Then, members of the British administrative services were trained to “think like the Queen” so that they would know what to do when messages and instructions took too long to arrive. Since they were recruited from the same narrow social class and shared the same blinders, they already had a running start toward cohesiveness and easily dealt with one another. Now you need more effort to build effective relationships with the range of people whose cooperation is needed.

In any circumstances, good, open, and trusting relationships have several benefits:

  • Communication is more complete, so you are more likely to know the needs and currencies of the other person.
  • The other person is more likely to take your word and to be open to being influenced.
  • You can pay back later in a wider range of currencies and less exactly.
  • With a connection, personal currencies become more important, so you can pay in a broader range of currencies.

Although transactions occasionally can be so clearly beneficial to both parties that their relationship becomes irrelevant, generally a poor relationship affects the likelihood of influence in many ways. For example, a poor relationship:

  • Decreases the other person's desire to be influenced.
  • Distorts accuracy of perceptions of each other's currencies and intentions.
  • Increases burden of proof on:
    • The other person's performance.
    • Delivery of promises.
    • The value of what is offered to you for exchange.
    • Expected timing of repayment.
  • Decreases tolerance for the ambiguity inherent in valuing different goods and services for exchange.
  • Reduces willingness to engage at all and raises spitefulness: “I'd rather go down in flames than help that rat!”

There is a long continuum as to how well or strained a relationship is. There are some people you have worked with before and have a very positive connection with and there are others where there has been a history of difficulties either between you and the other and/or between your respective areas. Think of Larkin Mehta (Chapter 5), fresh out of graduate school, faced with making a relationship with a middle-aged male who calls her “Kiddo,” which she considers demeaning. Or a federal inspector trying to make a relationship with operators of nuclear facilities after years of frosty, uncooperative relationships between the groups.

After your initial diagnostic on the other person's world, determining what is important to them and how what you want might pose demands and difficulties for them, think about the relationship. This has two aspects. First, as mentioned, is the nature of your relationship. What state is it in? Second is some initial sense of how they want to be related to. (You may have to test this with first-hand evidence from early interactions.)

We will start with the situation where the relationship is more neutral. There you haven't had much contact with that person, know them slightly, and are starting to discuss the change you want, so the issue you face isn't improving the relationship, but with figuring out how the person wants to be related to.

How Do You and the Other Want to Be Related To?

One of the most accessible areas for building relationships is work style. All people have a certain work style—a way of solving problems, dealing with others, and doing their jobs. Some people prefer careful analysis before action; others like blasting through and patching any holes later. Some managers want subordinates to come to them only with solutions, while others want employees to seek help when the problem is still developing. Some like to start with personal exchange, such as recent events, social activities, family news, then get down to business, while others find that truly annoying until business is finished—if at all. In building a working relationship, some people like to get to know a colleague before dealing with the task, while others feel they cannot consider closeness until they have interacted successfully on work. (See Table 6.1 for a sample of possible work styles.)

Table 6.1 Work Style Differences

Focus on problems [glass as half-empty, what hasn't been accomplished, what failed] Focus on successes [what has been accomplished]
Divergent thinking [explores new options; expands what is being considered] Convergent thinking [reduces options; pushes quickly to solutions]
Want structure [likes rules and routines; predictability, not surprises] Comfortable with ambiguity [few rules and regulations]
Analysis, then action [studies options before acting] Action before analysis [acts quickly; collects data from results, modifies]
Focus on the big picture Focus on the details
Logical/rational [wants facts/data, does not trust intuition in self or others] Intuitive [relies heavily on hunches, own “gut”—places less reliance on facts/data]
Seek risks [likes to take chances, willing to fail, try new approaches] Avoid risks [tends to be very careful, prefers the “tried and true”]
Respect authority [supports established authority, may defer and not push back] Discount authority [disagrees, pushes back on authority]
Relationships first [sometimes willing to sacrifice task quality for good feelings] Task first [greater emphasis on task success than on good relationships]
Seek/value/encourage conflict [and disagreements] Avoid/suppress conflict [and disagreements]
Competitive [likes to compete, turns situations into personal win-lose tests] Collaborative [prefers to collaborate; seeks win-win outcomes]
Respond primarily to own needs [and concerns] Take account first of others [needs and concerns]
Like to be in control [determines direction, nature of activities, wants to approve all decisions] Like others to take control [determine direction, nature of activities, accept decisions]
Optimistic [about how things will turn out; sees probability of success] Pessimistic [about how things will turn out; sees likelihood of failure]
Like working alone [on projects] Prefer working with others

Preferred styles come from training and experiences, the demands of jobs, and individual personality. Cultures create work styles, too. In many Asian and Latin countries, no work can be undertaken until colleagues have consumed many cups of tea or coffee and exchanged pleasantries. In parts of the United States, however, people get impatient if they don't tackle tasks early and save socializing for later.

Objectively, there's no “right way” to interact, declared in heaven and engraved in stone. Subjectively, however, people often do feel there is one right way—theirs! They often are not aware of their style; it feels so natural, it must be inherently correct. But, in dealing with others, it is important to be aware of your style and that of the person you want to influence.

Sometimes differences in work styles can be very compatible. The “big-picture” CEO may work well with the detail-oriented COO (though reverse the roles and the styles are likely to be problematic). But in many cases, differences in work styles cause problems, especially if these differences can't be discussed and dealt with.

Take the person who is a divergent thinker. Jean loves coming up with new ideas but is working with Sandy who is more convergent, gets impatient at what she thinks is excessive brain-storming, and pushes for closure. Soon they start to polarize. Jean, sensing Sandy's tendency, rushes to suggest three new ideas while there is still time, and Sandy closes her ears to these new possibilities. Both become frustrated, and their relationship is strained.

Dealing with Work Style Difficulties

So what can you do to prevent such problems and deal with them when they occur? The first step is to set aside blaming the other and engage in self-reflection. Using the table of common work style differences, identify your own preferred style. Then assess the style of the person you want to influence and contrast the two styles. Do different styles account for some of the difficulties the two of you have working together? If so, then you have choices. One option is to modify your approach (for example, do you really have to generate that many new ideas?). This doesn't mean that you have to totally adopt the style the other person prefers, although that is another option.

A third option, if the other person is willing, is to discuss your differing styles and see if there is a way to proceed that would satisfy both of you. But how to do that when you are annoyed at the other? It can require a change in mind-set.

The other advantage of considering work styles is that they are about behavior, not personality. If Jean views the problem as Sandy's personality defect, she might well confront her with something like, “The trouble is that you are rigid and too much of an anal-compulsive!” That is not going to help the relationship.

That kind of attack on personality causes defensiveness, and even without it, changing personality is slow and difficult. But most people have more control over their behavior. They can modify particular behavior far more easily than their inner personality. Thus, if Jean realizes that she is dealing with irritating behavior and sees that the dilemma is caused by how both parties interact, then she could likely say some variation of:

Sandy, can we talk about how we are working together? I think we are both doing things that are frustrating to the other. It seems to me that you like to make decisions quickly. So, my liking to explore new possibilities must drive you as crazy as your quickly wanting closure frustrates me. Can we talk about how we can each use our tendencies productively?

This moves from name calling to potential joint problem solving.

But sometimes talking doesn't work and it might become necessary to use distance. Can the project that Jean and Sandy are working on be separated so that Jean does the idea generation aspect and Sandy the execution?

A final option to get the other to take the issue seriously can be confrontation and even threat. But, as we warn elsewhere in this book, use that option with care so it doesn't escalate or force the other to dig in. Doing this successfully requires more than a willingness to be tough because threats with no resources behind them are empty and self-defeating. Your own skilled performance powerfully undergirds confrontation. You don't want to get into the position of barking a threat only to hear the snide retort, “Got a stamp? Use snail mail to write to someone who gives a damn!”

Although differing work styles are often enough to cause serious problems, sometimes conflict results from genuine differences of substance. Very smart and strong people can have opposing views about, for example, fundamental strategic direction. Because they feel so strongly, they begin to think the problem is the other person's bullheadedness, not legitimate business disagreements, and will be unable to reach agreement. We do not want to minimize these honest disagreements as a source of influence disputes. However, don't compound them with communication problems caused by unrecognized differences in work style. Resolving genuine task disagreements is difficult enough without adding the extra burden of conflicting work styles.

For Every Season: Increasing Your Work Style Repertoire

Although most people limit their power because they define too narrowly their range of currencies, they also can lose power by overspecializing in only a few preferred styles. As we have said, all approaches on Table 6.1 are appropriate under some situations. And all of these are behaviors that can be learned (even if some are more preferable to you than others). Thus, the ability to fit your approach to the setting increases your ability to have influence. Try expanding your style to adapt to the preferred style of the other party, even if at first it feels awkward. You may want to practice with a trusted colleague to get more comfortable with a more suitable style for the particular partner.

Dealing With the Situation When the Relationship Is Bad

We have talked about how to build a productive work situation when the initial relationship is neutral, but what about an initially negative relationship, either from past battles with the person or bad blood between your departments?

The goal is not to build intimacy, magically converting your bitterest enemy into your best friend. Remember, the nature of alliance is for both sides to accept that they may have very different objectives and styles but can find some common ground for limited, mutually beneficial transactions. Although friendships sometimes grow as a by-product of getting past old wounds and doing business with each other, the goal is just to create a satisfactory enough relationship to finish the necessary tasks.

The question is, can you (temporarily) set aside feelings and focus on the task or is it better to try to improve the relationship? Frequently, successful work allows the parties to know each other better, move beyond stereotypes, and build a better relationship. On the other hand, the initial problems may be so great that they prevent a positive outcome, causing the relationship to worsen. Resolving interpersonal issues first increases the probability of accomplishing the task, but not all parties are amenable to such personal discussion. (Table 6.2 provides some guidance about when to use each approach.)

Table 6.2 Improving Relationships through Task or Relationship Approach

Start with Working on Task Start with Repairing Relationship
Animosity is mild. Animosity is strong.
Task can be accomplished even with animosities. Bad feelings block task success.
Task success likely to improve feelings. Even with task success, feelings won't improve.
Culture represses being explicit. Culture supports being explicit.
Ally can't handle directness. Ally welcomes directness.
Your style not suited to directness. Your style suited to directness.
Task failure would hurt both. Task failure won't harm the other person.

Degree of Animosity

When two people have too much prior animosity, it blocks their working together on any task. The feelings bubble to the surface at the slightest provocation and drive out real work. Any disagreement deadlocks decision making, and both parties look for ways to prove how bad the other is—and how virtuous they are. With moderate animosity, the pull of a difficult task may carry both parties past their feelings. They “get interested,” and the work proceeds despite their reservations about each other.

How Interdependent Is the Work?

Some jobs can split up as we suggested above with Jean and Sandy so that contentious parties have minimal contact. Where tasks are easily divisible this approach might work. However, if the job requires much interdependence and free-flowing information exchange, negative feelings can block task success.

Degree of Explicitness Approved by the Culture

An increasing number of company cultures foster an open style and encourage confronting differences of all kinds. Members are expected to let one another know what is on their minds, and anyone who doesn't speak up is considered weak and unduly constrained.

Unfortunately, an open, direct culture is less common than cultures that discourage straight talk. Many traditional organizations (for example, banks, insurance companies, and service firms) reinforce members for being circumspect, holding disagreements down, and avoiding sharp interpersonal confrontation. In such cultures, disagreements are “managed” to avoid embarrassment, and it is considered bad form to discuss a relationship directly with a colleague.

Skills in Having Direct Discussions

Some people are skilled at raising relationship issues, while others are ham-handed and immediately manage to insult the person with whom they are trying to patch things up. Some allies welcome a direct discussion about relationships, while others are too shy or uncomfortable for an open discussion of differences. A further difficulty is that not everyone is good at understanding what the other person really prefers, but often they assume reluctance when there is eagerness or assume eagerness when there is great reticence.

An example of successful assessment involved Les Charm, the entrepreneurial MBA (Chapter 5), whose very direct approach created the kind of working relationship he wanted in a very conservative organization. He assessed that the division head he negotiated with was a deal maker by profession, so Les's directness was appreciated. Imagine Les Charm trying to talk that way with a circumspect and rule-bound auditor. He would have been (perhaps politely) shown the door.

Fears of Direct Discussion of Relationship Problems

There are many reasons other than the listener's resistance that people are reluctant to raise relationship problems directly with a difficult ally. Concern about hurting the other, fear of retaliation, worries about possible embarrassment in future dealings, fear that the initiator is really the one at fault and will be told that in no uncertain terms—or just plain dislike of unpleasant encounters—are all reasons we frequently hear. The question you must answer is whether the potential pain caused by an attempt to tell the ally your concerns is worse than the very real and present pain of continuing on in an unsatisfactory way. In general, we believe that the actual confrontation is seldom as bad as anticipated; therefore, we encourage directness—but only with the kind of skill you can learn in this book, of course!

The Initial Diagnosis

The first step is a careful diagnosis, focusing on any situational factors underlying the animosity. As we have repeatedly stressed, be careful not to fall into the easy (but often false) trap of assuming that the other is stupid or evil. Part of this examination asks the self-challenging question, “Are you part of the problem?”

As maddening as it can be to deal with someone who isn't relating to you as you would wish and as easy as it is to blame the difficulties on the other person, you must examine your own attitudes and behavior. Have you prematurely written others off, making it impossible to see how to approach them? As we have stressed, you must keep an open mind about the other person's worth. A strong negative conclusion will affect how you interact and usually radiate negative feelings, turning off the target of your scorn.

When mistrust has entered the relationship, we naturally tend to avoid the mistrusted other. This reduces the very contact that might inject new, more favorable data into the relationship. The absence of favorable data creates a fertile breeding ground for more mistrust and negative assumptions, leading to a vicious negative cycle. Somehow, the cycle must be broken.

A related problem is that once you judge someone, it is very human to see only evidence that you are right and ignore everything else. People see what they expect (and want) to see and feel vindicated by the “proof” that they were right. In addition to the problem of locked-in perception, pay attention to the possibility that you are provoking the very behavior that you don't like in the other person. For example, remember the discussion of work styles; does your penchant for risk-taking provoke the other to be overly cautious, or vice versa?

The next step is to carefully assess the other person's world to understand what might cause the difficulty. If you have read Chapter 4, you know that we advocate looking as closely as you can at the other person's organizational situation. Doing so helps you not only determine the other person's likely currencies but also understand more about what causes the behavior in question. The better you understand what is driving the behavior, the more patient and sympathetic you are likely to be. Instead of feeling indignant, you might feel sympathy or empathy and use that to make a positive connection. Knowing the causes of behavior does not excuse bad behavior, which you are certainly entitled to find objectionable, but that doesn't usually improve the connection.

Downplay Personal Feelings and Start to Work

Perhaps the most common way to attempt fixing poor relationships is to overlook feelings and concentrate on working together at tasks. Successful joint accomplishment can improve trust and foster a better relationship. When the relationship is poor and neither party can order the other to engage in a joint effort, often they never find a cooperative task. The most dissatisfied person usually just avoids the other or stalls. But even when two combatants agree to work together, that does not guarantee an improved relationship.

Unfortunately, the very problems that created the original difficulties are likely to stymie task cooperation. This is similar to a divorcing couple trying to negotiate their own settlement. If they could talk reasonably with one another, dividing the property would not be difficult; but if they could talk reasonably, they probably wouldn't be divorcing in the first place.

Nevertheless, circumstances sometimes force people to work together, and then they find the task demands so compelling that they can put aside their differences, and, as a by-product, their relationship improves. When that happens, both parties are pleasantly surprised and can build from there. But the odds of such a happy outcome are not great.

If you choose not to work directly on the relationship, it is still useful if you first acknowledge that the relationship has problems and share the intention of creating at least a workable relationship by effectively working together.

Furthermore, when the relationship is not good, there is a greater need for specific task agreements along the way, because each party is less likely to give the other the benefit of the doubt on commitments. In addition, it becomes even more important to deliver exactly as promised each step of the way, which can start accumulating trust. It can be especially useful if, when discussing the exchange, you give a little bit more than is being asked to demonstrate goodwill.

The risk in all of this, however, is that if agreements are not met, the relationship will deteriorate and be even more difficult to improve in the future. Even then, all might not be lost. Hold back from jumping to the conclusion that the other is devious and untrustworthy and get into inquiry to find out what is the cause. Is it simply forgetfulness? An unclear agreement? Often it is the second conversation that produces the change.

Speak Directly about the Relationship Problems

In general, we believe in raising relationship issues directly whenever possible, to reduce possible misunderstandings, to test assumptions, and to clarify reasoning behind behavior that makes sense to the individual even though the other sees it negatively.

If, by their nature, poor relationships depend for continuation on reduced contact, the obvious solution is increasing contact and making a direct attempt to patch the difficulties. When done well, this can make a very big difference in the way two people deal with each other.

During the course of our work in organizations, we have frequently observed people reluctant to discuss their poor relationships openly. Many factors besides personal preference determine the appropriateness of dealing directly with relationship problems rather than trying to carry on with the tasks.

When to Proceed with a Task or Initiate a Direct Discussion to Improve a Relationship

Dealing with the Task

Let's assume that your diagnosis of the situation leads you to conclude that it is better to deal with the task first and see how that affects the relationship. As part of your assessment, you have reflected whether you might be doing something inadvertently that is compounding the problem (such as not providing information or using an incompatible work style).

You have also assessed that you can set aside your negative feelings and see the other as a potential ally. Setting feelings aside does not require that you deny or forget them, only that they won't leak into conversations or cause you to blow up at the first disagreement.

Even though you will not deal with the strained relationship at this point, it is usually important to at least acknowledge it. This may require nothing more than saying, “Casey, I know we have had difficulties in the past, but I wonder if we can set them aside and work on this task that is important to both of us.”

Just reaching an initial agreement doesn't mean that it will hold throughout the entire task. The poor relationship might begin rearing its head repeatedly, which requires dealing with it directly. This transition may require nothing more than saying, “We seem to be having a lot of arguments that make it difficult to work on the task; could we take a break from that and see what is going on between us so we can clear that up and work better together?”

But that problem may not arise. In the best of all possible worlds, work is proceeding reasonably well, so you can achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. With that success under your belts, this might be the time to talk about what went well in the relationship that you would want to duplicate in the future.

Dealing with the Relationship

Alternatively, assume that your original diagnosis makes you conclude that jumping right into task work would be too hard, so you want to try to improve how you are working together. Again, you have done your self-reflection to identify if you are doing anything to compound the problem.

You also are clear about your primary goal in this upcoming discussion. This is important because it is easy to get derailed from the key objective of an improved work relationship. Do you also want Casey to accept blame for past problems? To change in numerous ways? To validate your wisdom? Knowing just what you want can save considerable aggravation and prevent an approach to the ally that is awkward, confusing, or unnecessarily irritating.

Acknowledging the Situation: Sharing Intentions

As we mentioned above, it is always good to acknowledge the present state. Denying present reality doesn't help anybody. But be sure that “acknowledging” isn't an excuse for an attack! Saying, “We have had some difficulties” is different from accusing the other as being the difficult one. After acknowledging the past state, it is usually good to then share your intentions. “I mention this because I want us to work better. Can we talk about what gets in the way so that we don't fall into the same patterns again?”

It would be nice to think that such an offering would start a calm, objective discussion. But it could also open Pandora's box and produce a torrent of recriminations. What if Casey retorts, “Your voice rises and your tone gets belligerent. You just want to dominate and win.” Now the shoe is on the other foot. Earlier you were trying not to attribute negative motives to her, but she has now done that to you. And rather than her being “to blame” (which you didn't at all mean to convey), she is now putting all the blame on you.

Hearing this is hard, especially if it doesn't match your picture of the situation. Feeling misunderstood is painful and can tempt you into some form of retaliation: “At least I'm the one who comes up with new ideas; you just sit there passive-aggressively shooting down anything I say!” And then the argument escalates with the danger that your relationship gets even worse.

Instead of this kind of tit for tat, can you see the silver lining in her initial statements? You are hearing her world and learning what is important to her. Rather than explaining yourself, can you explore why she finds your style and behavior so difficult? You don't have to agree with her, but understanding her is important. And that stance is likely to reduce her animosity.

If you have done that, then you can make your own world visible. What forces and assumptions led you to do what this potential ally dislikes? For example, perhaps pressure from your boss for a solution has in part caused your impatience. Can you help her see your framework just as you have seen hers—with understanding, if not acceptance? This is far easier to do if you first demonstrate your understanding of the other person's position.

As difficult as this discussion might be, it is even worse if Casey refused to talk about it in the first place or, once the issue had been broached, cut it off. Few things are more dangerous than agreeing to disagree about an interpersonal issue. That only drives the issue underground to simmer and explode again at an inopportune moment.

Instead, is this a time to talk about currencies? What costs are both parties paying for the present situation, and what benefits can both gain from a successful resolution? Has Casey also been complaining about the aggravation of delayed decisions? Has she mentioned issues she wanted to deal with but has hesitated to bring to the table? The objective is an increased desire to deal with your relationship difficulties. You are describing a new type of exchange where the benefit of resolution outweighs the cost of sticking in and dealing with these difficult interpersonal issues.

Learning from the Past, but Focusing on the Future Work

The purpose of this conversation is understanding what went wrong and what each party needs to have a successful work relationship. The goal is not to affix blame but to change the future. Even if there have initially been mutual accusations that may feel messy, can you not get stuck there, but move beyond it by saying something like, “I don't think it helps us to find out who is to blame for what has occurred. Don't we want to make sure this doesn't happen again? How do we want to operate better in the future?”

Hearing about the past can be valuable; it not only gives information about the concerns of the other, but once something is expressed, it may be easier to let it go. But it is more important that Casey is telling you what matters to her. Hear her complaints as her negative currencies that she doesn't want to be paid in again.

Moving into Joint Problem Solving; Reaching Agreement

The purpose of this conversation is setting up win-win exchanges on the task. But in working out the relational problems, you are using the Cohen-Bradford Influence Model! You have (hopefully) seen each other as potential allies, have shared your mutual worlds (for example, the perception of what went wrong), and the complaints which are the currencies each wishes to be paid in. Now it is time to set up win-win relational exchanges. What does each need to work well together?

Sometimes, just fully understanding the other person is sufficient. If Casey knows that you aren't purposely being rude, just raising your voice because of heightened involvement, she might stay in the room. Likewise, once you learn that she is concerned about not being listened to, you might become a bit more sympathetic and sensitive to your behaviors that might appear domineering.

Or, it might call for one or both of you to modify your behavior. Can you explore how to alter your behavior so this potential ally will allow a task relationship to grow? And do you need some things from her? The objective is to work out your interpersonal relationship so you can both productively engage in trades around task goals. (For more ideas about approaching feedback, see the section “Feedback as Exchange,” in Influencing Difficult Subordinates at www.influencewithoutauthority.com.)

Importance of Specifics in the Resolution and Follow-Through

If the conversation has been difficult, the temptation is to end it as soon as possible. The danger is that the desire for early closure will lead to (useless) generalizations: “Yes I will try harder.” The more strained the relationship, the more important it is to have specific agreements. And, of course, the relationship will really improve only when subsequent behavior matches those pledges.

Even when both parties are committed to these agreements, backsliding is inevitable. You must also discuss how to handle times when one person feels that the other has not come through. Silence only builds resentment and cements in the belief that the other is untrustworthy.

Self-Traps in Finding and Developing Allies

There are many actions that may keep you from creating or enhancing requisite relationships.

Waiting for Problems before Bothering with Relationship Building

Building a good relationship is far more difficult when there is a problem between you and the other person. Effective influencers use every opportunity—including membership on committees or task forces, incidental contact, and even sitting next to strangers at lunch and chatting— to gather information and to build the connections before they have to ask for anything.

Anticipating That No Approach Will Work, So Holding Back Too Long

Everyone knows some types of people whom they don't expect to be able to connect with, whether it is gruff, intimidating individuals, seemingly aloof colleagues, very confident and ambitious folks, shy non-initiators, or some other type. It is tempting to assume that the difficult person is immovable and avoid any approach. But there is almost always a human being with emotions and wants lurking within even the most difficult-appearing person, and avoidance only makes it more difficult to connect later.

Saving up Frustrations and Exploding

Too often, people fear saying something negative to a difficult person, so they hold back and start to fume. Then, some small event causes an outburst that can totally dissolve a distant relationship. Perhaps “count to ten” before saying anything when angry is a good idea, but counting to ten million is not. Fix relationship problems close to their origins.

Reverting to Negative Assumptions when You Find Behavior Puzzling

We can't warn about this often enough: If you have tried to influence another person or group and aren't getting anywhere, resist the temptation to assume that there is something wrong with them. If you hear yourself writing someone off as stupid, selfish, not interested in the company, or defective in some way, stop at once, step back, and ask yourself, “Could there be another (more positive) reason for their actions?” For example, are they not responding to your requests because they feel pressure from a demanding boss? Or from a role overload? With that orientation, you are more likely to open the conversation in an inquiring and supportive manner than the negative accusations that the first assumption cause.

Perhaps it will help you check yourself to know that Napoleon long ago declared, “Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.” He recognized that what looked like behavior that was deliberately negative often had a much simpler cause, not aimed at the one harmed, but a result of ignorance, ineptness, oversight, incorrect assumptions, or false information. You can at least start there before “convicting” the other party. The relatively rare truly malicious people will soon enough reveal their true colors, and then you can go into attack mode if necessary.

We have an extended example of how Brian and Dennis, long-time partners in an international financial services holding company, made exchanges that restored a relationship that had recently deteriorated; go to “Partners Making Exchanges to Improve Their Relationship” at our website www.influencewithoutauthority.com.

Conclusion

The goal is not to make everybody best friends. And it is possible to get work done when there are interpersonal difficulties. But relationship problems can be a serious barrier to effective task success, and it is usually worth the effort to turn troublesome relationships into at least acceptable working ones. You can develop the influence approaches to make that happen.

We complete fleshing out the influence model by looking at the process of making the trades that achieve influence. Chapter 7 looks closely at the ways to make exchanges that sustain and improve your relationships while attaining influence.