Influencing Outcomes, Not Others, Is the Single Most Significant Contributor to Success
Practically everything we do in life, throughout every single day and every single moment of our lives, is an attempt to influence others to act or think as we would like them to act or think. I make no judgment in this observation of human interaction—good or bad, right or wrong, should or shouldn’t—it is just the way it is! Of course, everybody tries to influence everybody else for many ulterior motives, but that is not the point. The point is just stating the most obvious observation of them all: Often what we do or say is to influence the thoughts and actions of others.
We try to influence others in multiple ways. The two most common, non-nefarious ways include using interpersonal skills and psychological approaches and using logical arguments by communicating benefits versus the repercussions, should our position not be accepted. However, in the business world, and specifically as related to career advancement, there is another dimension that rarely gets its proper due. It is utilized on and off, but mostly haphazardly, or we stumble onto it. This section focuses on this single, underutilized influencing element, which in turn offers the greatest opportunity to differentiate oneself and allows one an accelerated career advancement. Whereas the other two more commonly used approaches center on how to influence individuals or groups, at the center of this underutilized approach is how to influence outcomes as opposed to individuals. Perhaps it may initially appear as a small conceptual nuance, since influencing an individual leads to influencing an outcome, but you will see that it actually is a fundamentally different approach that requires a completely different mindset. A number of examples will help explain the difference, the value, and how to put this approach to influencing outcomes into practice.
First, I’d like to set the stage so that you know what to look for as we work through this topic. Keep in mind that henceforth whenever I use the words “influence” or “influencing,” I exclusively refer to the underutilized approach—the one that influences outcomes. There are three parts to the stage-setting: (i) introducing the concept of “owning” a solution, (ii) explaining how influencing and job responsibilities intersect, and (iii) explaining the relationship between “doing one’s best” and influencing.
I have used the word “own” a number of times so far in this book. It is a favorite word of mine that I’ve used for years and to which I attribute a specific and special meaning. I plan to continue to use the word, and so allow me to better define what I mean.
I use “own” or “owning” to mean a total acceptance of a position, followed by a full sense of responsibility and commitment to treat it with the utmost priority, and proactively take all necessary actions to implement it successfully. The opposite of “owning” would be to do something haphazardly or without full commitment.
As stated, I attribute a special meaning to the word “influencing.” To me it refers to influencing an outcome, which represents a higher level of duty when it comes to performing our job. Our principal job responsibility calls for us to competently do our best. “Influencing,” on the other hand, as I define it, requires even more than that. This concept is well understood in the military and in the public safety sectors, such as police, firefighters, and so on. It is called “above and beyond the call of duty.” It refers to the fact that the “call of duty” already requires one to do the best, most competent job they can, but going “above and beyond the call of duty” is a whole different performance level, one that yields the most recognition and rewards. The way I see it, the “call of duty” in business is to do one’s best work while influencing outcomes requires you to go “above and beyond the call of duty.” Let me elaborate to explain.
The Call of Duty in the Business World
We are taught to present things logically and prove that we are “right” in order to influence others to accept our position. In fact, perhaps all human interactions are based on this premise: that logic is the strongest driver of behavior and acceptance of position (in a civil world, without nefarious motivations). When we try to influence others, or resolve a conflict with others, we default to explaining the validity of our logic.
In reality there are five factors, which together influence us the most, and we use them as we try to influence one another. The five factors are:
1.Pointing out the benefits (advantages) vs. negative repercussions
2.Showing that our position is logical, whereas the opponent’s is not
3.Showing that we are more in the right
4.Pointing out that we are being fair vs. unfair
5.Achieving a moral outcome (i.e., good vs. bad)
In other words, we have become conditioned to believe that compelling logic and being right should always prevail, and thus we need only to prove it to others to have them accept our position. To prove this point, just imagine any argument or conflict that needs to be resolved in a civil way. The first things that are pointed out are the benefits (advantages) offered should the position be accepted, and the reverse—the negative repercussions that might befall us if we don’t. Next on the priority list is pointing out the compelling logic of our position, particularly in trying to prove that we are more in the right than the other side. If that is not convincing enough, we’ll fall back to point out the fairness of our position, versus being unfair. The other side is trying to do the same.
We reach agreement through a compromise, which means taking the other side’s position into account. Our final judgment will most likely represent what we consider to be a fair solution that reflects a degree of validity in each party’s logic. It is this reality that gave rise to the famous adage “in business you get not what you deserve, but what you negotiate.” It basically means that if one is better at presenting their logic, they are much more likely to get a better outcome than the other party. Or, stated more simply, the more compelling the logic, the more likely one is to get their preferred resolution.
Notice that the above explanation is silent on how behavioral interactions and feelings may affect the resolution of a conflict situation. We all know they do. We all know that they are in direct conflict with the “logical” way of resolving conflict situations. We refer to them as “irrational” reactions, while the logical way is the “rational” behavior. In the business world, everybody kind of understands that rationality needs to prevail, and so the likelihood of being irrational and introducing behavioral considerations and feelings is minimized.
A problem arises when one side concludes that the other side’s position reflects biased, incomplete facts or faulty logic and poor judgment. Once a party believes the other party is rejecting its position despite “fair and valid” reasons, then upset and intransigence set in. The situation could even lead to some anger and irritation, and the probability of reaching a fair compromise is significantly reduced.
Given the above, the “call of duty” requires us to originate the best logic, present it in the most compelling way, and reach the best resolution for us and our company, without allowing emotions to affect us. At a minimum, we and the company expect that any compromise position will reflect the “fairest” one and be good for the business. Should a fair compromise not be possible, then we are expected to walk away. Do that and we have performed our job well—our call of duty.
Let me point out an important observation. Walking away from an unfair resolution of a conflict is perfectly acceptable and is part of our job. In other words, not getting the result we were initially looking for is perfectly acceptable, so long as it was not within our control and doing otherwise would have been unfair and bad for the business.
Here’s an interesting thought, however: There is minimal burden placed on us to help minimize the irrational behavior of the other party, or the unreasonable, unwise, invalid, unsound position they adhere to, which ultimately denied successfully achieving an outcome. In many cases, we just accept this reality. After all, it’s not our fault. How the other side ultimately behaves is out of our control, so what are we to do? But what if there was a way, and we could influence the other side’s behavior? If indeed we could, then the payoff would be substantially better. Instead of justifiably walking away, we successfully achieved an outcome we desired. Now you are venturing into the “above and beyond the call of duty.”
This, in my mind, is the difference between doing your job well and influencing others.
Above and Beyond the Call of Duty
In the example above, we legitimately walked away from resolving a conflict because of the irrationality of the other side. We feel we did our best, and our superiors would recognize our effort as excellent work. This is a predictable outcome in the business world. But what if we could have changed that outcome? What if we had some way to influence the other party in such a manner that success on both sides could be achieved? If it would have taken extra time and energy commitment on our part to make that happen, would it be worth doing so? What if we changed our mindset not to be satisfied with a “walking away” outcome, even though our superiors would have given us all the credit, regardless? If you decided to do so, then you would own a different philosophy regarding your job. You would view your job differently from one where you are just doing your best. You would define it within the context of how effective you are in influencing outcomes.
My advice is for you to do so. I can tell you from my experience that the answers to the above questions are definitely in the affirmative, perhaps not in all cases, but in enough cases to make your performance stand out above and beyond that of your coworkers.
So now you understand conceptually what the nuanced difference of viewing your job as influencing others is. Also, I suggested that it could yield positive results that otherwise might not have happened. We are now ready to look at the examples that will demonstrate that it does indeed work!
Example 1: The Philosophy of Influencing Outcomes at Booz Allen
This example will help make the case that influencing outcomes is not just a concept, but an independent factor in its own right in achieving success. It clearly demonstrates that a change in mindset is not just a conceptual change. Rather, if you own it, you make real changes in work processes that significantly improve the probability of achieving the outcome you seek.
As I have said, Booz Allen is one of the premier consulting firms. I joined its strategy group right after graduating from Wharton. The group I joined provided strategic and competitive analyses at the CEO and board of directors’ level. The other three top consulting firms at the time were McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group (BCG), and Bain & Company. These firms were our direct competitors. It was at Booz Allen where I first learned that my job was not to do the best analyses and come up with the best recommendations possible. Booz Allen had a philosophy: Unless the client implemented our recommendations, we provided little value to that client. So, our job as individuals and as a firm was not just to present what we deemed as the best solutions for a client, but rather to influence a client to own and implement the recommendations.
The firm dedicated its systems and processes to increasing the probability that the influence would indeed yield results. It added about one-third extra effort, time, and cost to us. It was a massive effort on the firm’s part, and it was a massive extra burden on us as individuals. It included many different components, and I’ll just quickly mention a few to show how the mindset was translated into real work and effort.
There were two major things that we did, with a substantially different effort and commitment level than our competitors. We knew it to be true because our clients told us so many times, and we had personally witnessed the difference as over time we had opportunities to assess each other’s work, albeit of course for different projects.
The difference was not in the quality of the analyses done or in the recommendations given. The four firms had an equally great reputation on that front. The difference lay in the extra work that was involved in influencing the clients and how much time and effort was spent on that. Booz Allen spent the most. As I said, at Booz Allen, one-third of our time was dedicated to it. Another firm, which I got to know very well, spent almost no time worrying about it. A third firm was more sensitive to the issue, but didn’t spend an inordinate amount of time and energy on it. The fourth firm, which happened to have been Bain & Co., made it part of its practice as well, and would only do work for clients where they were also involved in the actual implementation of the recommendations.
I can’t tell you with certainty whether the difference I am highlighting indeed translated into a difference in financial performance for the consulting firms. Even with the extra time, energy, and effort that went into it, it may, nevertheless, have made no difference at all. But I can tell you that the implementation rate of the recommendations was significantly different among the firms and directly correlated to the effort spent on the influence dimension.
Once Booz Allen decided to own the issue of the implementation rate, with a target of 100 percent, the company embarked on an effort to understand how it could pragmatically reach it. Clearly, to do that well, the firm needed to first understand the reasons that hinder the implementation rate. Then, once those reasons were identified, come up with the actions that would minimize the obstacles.
Booz Allen’s own research revealed two key reasons why implementation is hindered:
1.There is no complete buy-in of the recommendations on the part of the executive(s) who would subsequently be responsible for some of the implementation in their departments/organizations. There were three general reasons why that happened:
A.The board and/or CEO forced a decision, and the executive team was not part of the deliberation process.
B.The executive team was part of the deliberation process, but never fully agreed with the recommendations reached by the board/CEO, so the executive team didn’t really own the decision, even though the executive team endorsed it in the final vote.
C.Self-serving, ulterior motives.
2.The executive level was fine with the recommendations, but the next layer of managers found a thousand ways either to slow the process down or halt it altogether.
When digging into why the next layer of managers did so, the same three general reasons that pertained to the executives emerged, with one notable important addition. In most cases, the next layer of managers never understood the logic behind the implementation. Further research suggested that the key reason was simply because their executives didn’t take the necessary time to explain the analyses used to arrive at the recommendations. All the executives did was to drop off the final consultant’s presentation and say, “Read the recommendations and tell me if you have any issues and make sure to implement them.”
The presentation that was left behind by the consultants generally consisted of bullet points and key words. Nobody could understand them without hearing the presenter, who gave it the proper context and rationale. This wasn’t much of an issue with the executive team that was present at the consultant’s presentation. However, it surely would never be well understood by those who were given the presentation deck only. They would get the overall messages or conclusions, but very little understanding of the underlying analyses and all the intricacies that justified those conclusions. Thus, the next layer of managers never owned the analyses and conclusions, and therefore the recommendations.
Once the reasons were fully understood, Booz Allen then sought potential solutions that would address them as much as possible, thereby increasing the probability of avoiding them. As a result, two key decisions were made, each placing substantially extra effort on the working team. These became the standard operating procedures that were passed on from one generation to the next. The decisions included the following:
•Our final reports would still be in bullet-point format, but each bullet point was to be logical, grammatically correct, and expressed in complete sentences. Sub-bullet points were used so that no long paragraphs were required. The guiding directive was that the report “has to be written in a way that anybody reading it will have the full AND SAME comprehension and understanding as those hearing it in the presentation itself.”
•The team had to make sure that all the data we used, all the analyses we conducted, and all the conclusions we drew were run by all the managers who would be responsible for the implementation. Any disagreements or apprehension on any manager’s part needed to be addressed and resolved. As a result, what we did was to make each one of those managers feel as if they were part of the team by involving them on an ongoing basis. We asked them to help with the data collection; we showed them the initial conclusions we drew from the analyses and asked for their feedback; and we took whatever they said very seriously, even when we thought it was nonsensical. Once we had buy-in on a subset of the analyses and conclusions, we would then run it by the executives for their comments and endorsement. This was an ongoing cycle. We never walked into the final presentation to the CEO and the board without knowing that all managers had fully endorsed our recommendations. If there were any disagreements, we fully understood the reasons and were prepared to refute them. However, it rarely happened.
You can surmise from the above how much extra time and effort went into this process. Needless to say, the team responsible for the work disliked putting in this extra effort. We already worked long hours and on weekends, and this increased the workload. But it yielded the proper results. I found out just how different the results were from other firms by happenstance.
A close acquaintance was a senior job manager at the Boston Consulting Group. He decided to leave the firm and wrote a resume to circulate. He asked me as a friend to look it over. I did so. One of the things that caught my attention was that he listed ten projects he had personally managed, in bullet-point format, with each bullet representing one project. However, the last bullet said, “Four of the projects were implemented by the client.” I recommended that he remove this point. He asked why.
I said, “Why would you highlight something negative?”
“It’s not a negative, it is a real positive,” he replied.
I patiently responded, “But it tells everybody that 60 percent of your projects were not implemented, and that raises the question of how good your recommendations were, to have a 60 percent failure rate.”
He replied, “What do you mean? Everybody knows that very few recommendations are actually fully implemented, because of organizational resistance. A 40 percent implementation ratio is a great success.”
I asked what the firm’s average ratio was, and he replied about 30 to 40 percent. He was very proud of his 40 percent achievement. I was dumbfounded. He asked me what the ratio was at Booz Allen; I told him it was close to 90 percent. I told him that I still thought that it would be safer to remove the 40 percent reference, thereby leaving the impression that perhaps the full 100 percent were implemented. He bought that logic and deleted the reference to the 40 percent success rate.
Example 2: An Example of Proactive Influencing
We at Booz Allen were involved with a study of a conglomerate that had enjoyed almost fifteen years of great success, but its performance over the last five years had deteriorated significantly. The company didn’t understand why and needed help. For essential background information, this company had little competition in its markets. It was almost a monopoly. Then two major changes happened at the same time. New regulations were introduced that gave rise to significant competition, and a big recession impacted the markets. Two years went by, and the board believed that the main reason for the decline was that the company had not adjusted its operations to effectively address the new regulatory environment. They therefore concluded that a stronger legal background was needed at the CEO level. The CEO at the time had no legal background and was let go. The senior executive vice president of legal became the new CEO. Two years later, performance had deteriorated even further. The CEO called us to help him turn it around.
In our introductory meeting with the CEO, he described the overall performance problems, but specifically mentioned that he was completely at a loss, because his corporate-level vice presidents and division-level presidents were making quarterly adjustments to forecasts, and at times as often as monthly, but those forecasts just never materialized. He asked, “How is it possible to miss in a big way forecasts every single month, particularly on profit forecasts?”
I was the job manager for this project, and on the team were a consultant who worked directly for me, a junior partner, and a senior partner. It didn’t take me long to grasp the problem. The monopoly had changed into a competitive marketplace. The company’s managers at all levels had stayed the same. They were completely unequipped to be effective in a competitive marketplace, and the recession just made things worse. Everybody believed that all they needed was to change their “regulatory expertise” and that it would solve their problems. They had no concept of how to forecast with a proper methodology and did not have a control mechanism in place to adjust expenses in real time. The CEO actually only got reports at a consolidated overall corporate level. Nobody even kept track of how much was spent in each of the divisions, let alone looked at the numbers when they became available months later. So, whatever the managers budgeted to spend at the beginning of the year, based on the forecasts at the time, was actually spent during the year, regardless of any downward adjustment to revenue forecasts as the year progressed. This resulted in huge losses that could have been easily controlled. Most importantly, there was no penalty whatsoever for consistently missing forecasts, either on revenues or cash flow and losses.
We did all the necessary analyses to help formulate effective competitive strategies. But in addition, major organizational changes needed to occur. New management processes had to be put in place, the biggest of which was establishing methodology-based forecasts, including at the consolidated, overall company level as well as the divisional level. It then had to have all the necessary tracking and control mechanisms that allowed for quick and timely adjustments to expenses, should expected revenues not materialize. The centerpiece of the forecasts and control processes was a penalty system that was meaningful enough to ensure accuracy, which included dismissal for continuing to be substantially off the readjusted shorter-term revenue forecasts and the management of expenses.
We wrote a full presentation report that went through a number of iterations, because we were very sensitive to how potentially damning to the CEO all the findings might appear to the board. After all, he’d been there for two years already and hadn’t assessed the need for these changes.
The evening before the presentation to the CEO, the senior partner called the team to a meeting. When the team assembled, he pensively pointed out a big dilemma that he anticipated might arise. The centerpiece of our recommendation was full accountability (dismissal) for continued deviation from forecasts. This would place the CEO himself at risk vis-à-vis his board, should that pattern of failing to meet forecasts not be corrected. Would the CEO, then, choose not to implement the recommendations because they would place him at risk? Might he not allow us to make our presentation to the board, which we expected to happen at the conclusion of our assignment?
The discussion that followed focused on what we should do if the CEO canceled the presentation to the board. We debated who our client really was—the CEO who hired us or the board of directors. The senior partner decided that our ultimate responsibility was to the board. So, if the CEO decided to kill the project because it increased his personal risk exposure, we would go over his head and contact the board to share our observations and recommendations. Obviously, this was the last thing we wanted to happen.
Since Booz Allen’s mindset was influence-oriented, the conversation quickly focused on the best way to mitigate this potential possibility. The conclusion was obvious: Get the CEO to enthusiastically endorse everything we were recommending, but how? What could we do or say to make it happen? The senior partner then raised a single question and asked each of the team members to answer it in order of seniority—the consultant first, then me, and then the junior partner. He gave us a minute to think about it. The question was, “What do I tell the CEO at the very beginning of the presentation to get him into a mindset that would be so welcoming of our recommendations that he would move forward with them despite the fact that he may place himself at a greater personal risk?” The responses were exceptionally revealing to me.
The consultant replied, “The company has had massive losses, and they can be stopped. Our recommendations can accomplish just that.”
I was next. My answer was, “Market dynamics have changed quickly and dramatically over the last five years and have had a lot of turbulence. The company needs to dramatically change, to make it more competitive in the marketplace. The good news is that we believe it can be done quickly, particularly with immediate substantial improvement to the company’s bottom line, but it will require some bold actions and potentially be less forgiving to division-level presidents.”
The junior partner said, “I would tell the CEO that there are good reasons to explain why the deteriorated performance occurred. We can help you with a presentation to the board that will highlight all that has happened. It also gives pragmatic recommendations that will quickly help you cure everything. We would like you to know that Booz Allen has a high degree of confidence that the recommendations, when fully implemented, will correct the situation quickly. We also believe that within one year you can change from losing money to becoming profitable.”
Just from our responses you should see that influencing doesn’t just happen. A correct mindset is a prerequisite, but spending the time and energy and proactively thinking about it is also required. Also, notice how the responses varied, even though we were all aware of the issue and were trained to think about how to influence an outcome. You probably noticed the purposely inserted little nuances and how each attempted to solve what the team perceived to be the challenge they were trying to influence. I’ll point them out just to show that the actual solution can be more art than science. But thinking ahead and identifying the correct potential obstacle is a prerequisite step to influencing.
The consultant used pure logic, emphasizing the benefits/rewards in the “scariest” and most factual way as to allay the potential concern of the CEO. He basically said, your company is dying and we can help resuscitate it. If you don’t implement our recommendations, the company is doomed (and, therefore, so are you). Powerful, logical, and an emotional motivator based on a fear factor.
I introduced the idea that we would ascribe the company’s deteriorating performance to market dynamics, thereby implying that it was not the CEO’s fault. It follows that the company must change substantially to respond to those dynamics, thus preconditioning the CEO’s thinking that substantial changes were the appropriate response. Then we would tell the CEO that we could confidently deal with the situation quickly. I then shifted the personal risk embodied in our recommendations to the division presidents so that the CEO’s personal risk was minimized and the CEO would retain the rewards.
The junior partner used the exact same reasoning I had, but used simpler and more concise phrasing, leaving nothing to the CEO’s interpretation. [As a side note, I learned over the years that if you can talk about the expected outcomes by using powerful influencing key words or concepts, it is much more effective than trying to describe and focus on the different factors that imply the same outcome. In other words, the first communicates the outcome directly, while the latter communicates factors that directly and obviously lead to the same outcome. For example, “Doing this will successfully reduce the costs and improve your margins” vs. “Doing this will improve your profitability.” Note the first is indirectly implying what the second states directly and explicitly, with a key influencing word—“profits”—which is most sensitive to the CEO.] Note another subtle difference in his response versus mine. Like me, he explained that the deteriorating performance was due to market factors (by implications, not the CEO’s fault) and suggested directly that we could present these facts to the board to help them understand it. This would lead the CEO to consider that our presentation to the board would help him personally.
The senior partner pensively looked at us and said, “I don’t know, let me sleep on it,” and the meeting concluded. I can assure you that he was still struggling with the best way to address it.
I couldn’t wait to hear what the senior partner would say the very next morning. I intuitively understood that I had just found myself in the center of something very nuanced, but very important, which I needed to make an integral part of my own thinking in the future.
We assembled in the CEO’s office the next morning. The senior partner took a completely different approach. As soon as the meeting started, he said, “Jim, thank you for the opportunity to help you with a very perplexing situation and the challenges you are facing. You told us, earlier on, that the biggest source of frustration for you is being so wrong with forecasts, so often, and almost monthly, am I correct?”
Jim replied with a neutral tone and expression. “Yes.”
“Jim,” said the senior partner, “how would you like to be able to stand in front of your board and give them forecasts knowing with confidence that they will not change on you?”
Jim’s face lit up. “Are you serious? That would be the greatest thing. Is it possible?”
I was blown away. I learned a lifelong lesson. You, the readers, are now the beneficiaries. The CEO was ecstatic when he understood that our recommendations were focused on solving his greatest frustration. As soon as he understood our rationale and why our recommendations would work, he was completely sold. There wasn’t even a question about not taking it to the board.
Example 3: How Influence Solved a Roadblock at Ameritech
This example demonstrates that a correct mindset, with a proactive influence mentality, may indeed lead to actions that otherwise might not occur. I was responsible for all venture investments on behalf of Ameritech. We were looking to invest in start-up companies whose technology and products could enhance our competitive position. It happened immediately after the breakup of AT&T’s nationwide monopoly.
The breakup of AT&T split the long-distance telephone operations and their networks from the local telephone businesses. The local telephone networks were managed separately in each of the states and were generally called the “Bell” companies, such as Illinois Bell, Indiana Bell, Ohio Bell, and so on. All the corporate functions, such as strategic planning, product planning, technology developments, financing, and so on were conducted at the corporate AT&T level. The breakup of AT&T resulted in eight separate telephone companies. The long-distance business remained at AT&T, but state telephone operations were consolidated into seven “Baby Bells,” and Ameritech was one of them.
Upon the split-up, all the Baby Bells, on day one, looked identical in their technological capabilities, products, and services offerings. Each, however, was located in a different geographical market. Ameritech was the entity under AT&T that served much of the Midwest—Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. There were no restrictions placed on the Baby Bell companies to expand into each other’s territories. All knew that they would shortly start competing with each other in earnest. Everybody expected a wave of start-up companies that would introduce new technologies and service capabilities that the Bell companies could implement to differentiate themselves from one another. The idea behind our venture investments at Ameritech was that if we invest with start-up companies early on, we can influence the development of the technology and be the first to market with it, thereby improving our competitive position.
I had a dedicated staff of six professionals looking for investment opportunities. There were two lower- to mid-level managers from the old AT&T organization who worked in the engineering and marketing groups and understood the specific technologies, products, and services offered by Ameritech. Their job was to help identify whether the technology of the start-up companies would fit Ameritech’s needs, and subsequently work with the various organizations within Ameritech to help with our in-depth due diligence requirements. The rest were hired from the outside; one was a brilliant PhD in electrical engineering with specialization in semiconductor science.
Final investment decisions had to be approved by my board committee, which was composed of Ameritech’s chairman and CEO; CFO; president; executive vice president, legal counsel; executive vice president, corporate strategy; and executive vice president, Ameritech Engineering (the group responsible for all the networks and integration of new technologies). There was one stipulation in my charter from my board committee, whose approval I needed to make investments. On top of convincing the committee that the investment would lead to attractive returns, I also needed to show a strategic synergy with Ameritech’s needs. My large approval committee spanned all the different areas, thereby allowing us to make a decision with a single meeting.
We looked for opportunities to invest equity capital in appropriate start-ups. There was no shortage of them. We had about eight potential investment opportunities for which we eagerly started doing the necessary market and competitive due diligence, and had asked the engineering organization to assign a team to evaluate whether Ameritech would benefit from those technologies.
It took about two to three months for a technology start-up to close on raising its capital from the venture capital community. We had to make a final decision within that time frame. The response we got from the various engineers assigned to us was very slow, and at times they didn’t even return calls.
I placed a call to the VP of engineering and explained my issue. He was a very nice guy and sympathetic to my problem, but said that there was not much he could do except try to prod them. The engineers had their primary responsibilities that took precedence, and he couldn’t force them to change their priorities. I told my staff to try harder. Two weeks later, we reconvened. There was no progress on the issue. We discussed what we could do to change this reality and concluded that there was nothing we could do to get the due diligence we needed on a timely basis. However, with my influencing mentality, I refused to accept that there was nothing we could do.
I met again with the vice president to explore how everything worked in his organization. Again, he was very responsive to all my questions, but continued to state that he couldn’t force his staff to shift focus away from their primary responsibilities; they would have to do so voluntarily. However, I didn’t just accept the inevitable. I did see a solution that was unorthodox, but one that could potentially work under the circumstances.
I went back to my office and called in Ray, the brilliant PhD. I told him that I had a solution for our problem and that he was the focal point of it. I told him what I expected him to do and he just looked at me and said, “Are you serious?” I said, “Absolutely!” Ray then replied, “Okay, you are the boss. It is your call.”
I basically told him that there was no way to shift the priorities of the supporting engineers to do any due diligence work for us in the time frame we needed. But technically, we as an organization didn’t need their due diligence capability, because we could do the due diligence ourselves. Instead, all we really needed was for them to state that the technology had potential synergies with Ameritech’s networks and future technology needs. He asked, “How can we get them to do so without them doing their own homework about a new technology they know nothing about, let alone how it would evolve and could be used in the telecommunications networks?” I said, “That’s a great question and here is what I want you to do. You do it well and I will guarantee to double your salary once you make it work well for us.”
I then proceeded to tell him that I wanted him to become a student again and do what he did when he was a full-time student. I told him to focus his full attention on studying everything about telecommunications networks from a technology standpoint. And since he was more scientifically qualified than the engineers, I expected that at the end of his self-study he would know more about their technologies than they knew themselves. This way he would conduct the due diligence we otherwise would have had to rely on the engineers to do. Then we would only need to meet them and convince them why and how the technology should and could be integrated into “their network.” At that point, all they would have to do is buy in on what we presented to them and say that they agreed with our conclusions. There were five such key managers working for the VP, so Ray also needed to develop friendly relationships with them. I told him that I had secured permission from the VP to allow him unlimited access to their restricted areas and that the VP would make the proper introductions to the managers. “The rest is up to you,” I said.
Within two months Ray became accepted by the engineers as if he were part of their organization, since he was seen there so often, and I made sure that the VP invited him to some staff meetings every once in a while, when technology issues were discussed. Ray showed the engineers the benefits of new technologies we wanted to invest in, and I made sure that he offered them the opportunity to “champion” the concept internally so they would get the credit for it.
It worked better than I ever imagined. Ray was very effective, and we would get their approval on a timely basis. It also added value to the VP himself, because we brought to his attention new technologies and potential capabilities that would help his organization and enhance his own position, effectiveness, and workload as related to future technology planning. He then started to work more closely with Ray and my organization. In fact, the VP recognized the brilliance and outside perspective that Ray brought to him. He asked my permission to have Ray more involved with him personally to help with his own future plans for the network, even when not related to any specific investment opportunities for my organization. A while later, I asked the VP if I could use his name for approving the synergy of technologies I was required to show, instead of using his managers’ names. He agreed. He then voluntarily offered to come to every meeting I had with my board (which included his direct boss) and attest to the potential synergies and attractiveness of the technology. He was thought of highly by senior management. Nobody would challenge his conclusions, so investments I recommended were approved with little further discussion.
The VP and I developed a close relationship over the years. He would ask me to look for specific technologies that he would like for us to get close to, which I was glad to do. Our appreciation for each other’s professional capabilities grew. After I left Ameritech to join a venture capital independent group, I constantly used his technical help and advice. Just as a reference, he had a superb nationwide reputation. He was one of the original six engineers who developed the cellular technology. When I started my own firm and raised my second and very large fund, I invited him to join me as a partner, which he did. We worked together until his retirement.
Example 4: Beth and the Music Icon
As you now know, Beth is my daughter. When she was a junior in high school, she was involved with the TV production club at school. The club produced various TV programs for the consumption of fellow students. Once a year, some of the better programs were submitted for local, regional, and then state competition. Beth undertook to cover a charismatic individual who worked at a toll collection booth. He was always cheerful and funny, and found a way to be endearing to all those who passed through his tollbooth. Over the years, practically everybody who lived in the vicinity knew him and thought fondly of him. Beth decided to do a short TV segment about him.
She went to the collection booth and interviewed him and some of the drivers of cars that passed through. It was an entertaining and high-quality segment. Even I was quite impressed when I saw the clip. A very creative part of the clip was the background music she selected. The name of the tollbooth collector was Jack. She selected the song “Hit the Road Jack” for the background music.
Beth’s piece won many awards at the local, regional, and state competitions. At a national competition, sixteen clips were selected as finalists. Hers was one of them. Those sixteen clips were submitted to CNN, which scheduled a two-hour program on a Sunday morning four weeks later to select and award prizes to the top three winners.
The school received the notification that Beth’s clip was selected to compete at the finals. Beth received a telephone call from CNN, notifying her that she was selected, but they had a big issue with the clip, and unless she could resolve it in time, they would not be able to enter her clip for the final competition.
The problem was the background song. Unless Beth had a license to use the song from the copyright owner, CNN would not be able to play the clip, as it would be an infringement of copyright. CNN also indicated to her that, absent a license, the next best thing she could have was permission from the copyright holder to play the song on TV.
A teacher was assigned to help Beth through the process of trying to secure a letter of consent from the copyright holder. The teacher wrote a letter on behalf of the school and Beth asking for his approval, so that CNN’s requirement could be satisfied. With a copy of that letter in hand, Beth approached me and asked for my opinion. She filled me in on all the details up to that point, and told me that she had already spoken on the phone with the assistant of the copyright holder and confirmed that the person indeed held the copyright for the song. Beth said the assistant was very sympathetic to her request, but the copyright holder would not give his approval. The assistant said she had been with him for ten years, and that they received hundreds of such requests every year. Even in the face of noble and compelling reasons, he had never granted a single one. She concluded, “You can try, but I don’t want you to get disappointed. I’m telling you that there is no way he will give his approval. He doesn’t care about the reasons. His answer is always no!”
Below is a synopsis of the letter the teacher wrote, which Beth showed me for my comments:
Dear Mr. [Name]:
My name is [_____] and I am Beth Kronfeld’s teacher at [_____] High School. Beth is a junior and is one of the top students here. Besides being a top student, Beth is a wonderful person, liked by all, who volunteers for many extracurricular activities to help the needy. She is giving so much of herself to help others and now she needs your help with a simple act of generosity.
Beth produced a wonderful TV clip about a very colorful and beloved individual who works at a toll collection booth on a major toll road. He has worked there for many years, and is always cheerful and funny. Every driver that lives in the vicinity knows him well, and all are very fond of him. Beth’s clip was so well done that it was submitted to compete nationally as part of a CNN-sponsored competition. Beth’s clip was selected as one of the top sixteen finalists. CNN plans to have a two-hour airing of the productions of the sixteen finalists and award prizes to the top three.
However, because the clip was about a beloved toll collector at the highway, Beth selected the song “Hit the Road Jack” as the background music for the clip, which was so appropriate for the subject matter. CNN notified the school that they might be risking infringement on your copyright of the song, and unless they get specific approval from the copyright holder, they will not enter Beth’s clip into the final competition. They gave us two weeks to secure such permission, before finalizing the competing clips.
Beth, I and the whole school hope that you will be magnanimous and give such permission. It would mean so much to everybody at school, and even more so to Beth, who always gives so much of herself to help others.
We all thank you in advance,
God bless you,
Sincerely,
[etc.]
Let’s pause here for a minute. Place yourself in my position and assess the letter. Would you make any changes?
At this point, I could give you my recommendations to Beth, but for the sake of illustration, I prefer to share the thought process that led to the recommendations. Thus, I will walk you step by step through my conversation with Beth.
My first response was, “I am extremely impressed! How the heck did you find so quickly the name and phone number of the person who owns the copyright for the song?” Now, keep in mind that this was in a different era—no internet, no Google, no anything! I would have suspected that it would have taken months and months to uncover that, and yet, she did it in two days! She gave me an answer, which I actually don’t recall now. But I remember being superbly impressed that a sixteen-year-old could have done it!
My second question was, “His assistant told you that there is no way that he will grant such permission, so why are you sending such a letter?”
Her response was, “There is nothing to lose, is there?”
“No,” I said, “but if you’re already trying against the odds, why not do something differently from everything that was unsuccessfully tried before?”
“What do you mean, Dad?” she replied.
I said, “Look at your proposed letter. Is there anything in this letter that you believe is unique enough, or that hasn’t been tried and said before?”
“I don’t know. How would I know what others wrote?” asked Beth.
“Well,” I said, “just try to put yourself in everybody else’s position and what they would likely use in their letter. Do you think that they will take a different approach? Or do you think they will all do exactly what you are doing in your letter?”
She reflected a minute and said, “I see your point. It would probably be the same kind of a letter, because it is the best logical approach that can work!” She emphasized the words “best logical approach” with a smile on her face, believing that she had outsmarted me.
“Correct,” I said, “and it would be the best approach under normal circumstances, but I’m not sure it would be here.”
“Why, what’s the difference?” she asked.
I replied, “The difference is very simple, and you fell into the same trap that everybody else would have likely fallen into. Under normal circumstances, you would have no insights whatsoever, and so going with the ‘best logical approach’ would make the most sense. But, is it the same in your case?”
She was completely puzzled. “What do you mean?” she asked. “What insight do I have?”
Now I put on a big smile and said, “The biggest insight there is! His assistant who has worked for him for the last ten years has told you, in no uncertain terms, that hundreds of such letters have never worked. So, why do you think that writing the same letter, or doing the same thing, would work now for you?”
“I didn’t think of that,” she said. “You have an interesting point.”
“Yes,” I said. “Most would have not thought of it.”
She said, “Okay, so what can I do? Is there anything that can be done? On second thought, if the ‘best logical approach’ didn’t work, then anything else would be a second choice, which, by definition, would be less preferable to the ‘best approach.’ So, how could a lesser-than-best approach work better than the best approach?” Good question. I was impressed with her logic, and not just because she was my daughter. Years of trying to teach her how to dissect situations and logic seemed to be paying off.
Okay, let’s pause again, and let me ask you the reader to reflect on the above. Was your original approach different? If not, do you agree with the above observations? Do you have any thoughts on how to proceed?
Back to my conversation with Beth. I said, “Well, whatever the approach is, it can’t be second to the best. It will have to be better than the best. Otherwise, as you stated, it would be an inferior approach and not likely work.”
Again perplexed, she said, “Dad, are you trying to confuse me? If we agree that the letter my teacher wrote was the best approach, how could there be a better than best? If there was a better than best, it means the best was not really the best!”
Again, I was impressed with how she caught on to the nuance. I was actually very proud. “Well,” I said, “by completely changing your perspective!”
“What do you mean, Dad?” she asked.
I replied, “Let’s look at the situation in front of us. There are two assumptions we can make, based on what the assistant told us. The first and most logical, which I expect everybody will take away from what she said, would be that the copyright holder has no compassion or magnanimity whatsoever. Otherwise, there would have been some exceptions that he would have made over the years for special cases. But she specifically emphasized that no matter what the reasons were, none was approved.
“The second assumption we can make is that perhaps the person may be magnanimous, but there are other reasons that lead him to outright reject all requests. If the first assumption is the real truth, then, tough luck, you will not be getting it either. But what if the second assumption is the correct one?”
“What other reasons can there be?” she asked.
“Well, to see if there might be other reasons, you’ll have to put yourself in his shoes and try to see if you might be able to think like he does. If you are able to do so, then you’ll know why he turned all the previous requests down and approach him in a way that addresses his real concerns. If you do that, you’ll have a much better chance. Do you see the logic and approach here?” I asked. “So, let’s start by putting ourselves in his shoes.
“If he is a considerate and magnanimous person, then we can conclude that he would have loved to accommodate such requests, but he doesn’t, ever! It means that he must have some very compelling reasons for not doing what otherwise he might have easily been willing to do. Can you think of what his biggest concern might be when faced with granting permission to play the song on TV?”
Beth was unable to think of anything. The few wild guesses she took made no sense.
I said, “I see three major factors; each is enough in its own right to justify turning down automatically any and all requests. More importantly, I believe that these are the true reasons, and that if we find a way to address them, you will stand a much better chance at getting an approval.”
“Really, you could think of three and I couldn’t have thought of a single one!” she exclaimed.
“Don’t feel badly,” I said. “You are in the majority. But I’ve been trying to teach you all these years to try and think differently, but always apply discerning logic. In this specific case, your experience is very limited, so there is no way you could have generated it on your own. Nevertheless, it is a great example and exercise for you to try and do it together with me now.”
I started by telling Beth that the first thing to understand is how the copyright holder makes money. “He gets royalties from the song. To get royalties, he needs to give approval and, in exchange, he receives royalties every time the song is played. These are not simple license-royalty agreements; they are complicated. An agreement not only needs to specify the terms and the payments, but it also will have to go into many aspects of defining specific terms and whatever the parties agreed to. For example, the length of time for which the license is granted. How royalty prices will change over time. To whom and how royalty payments be submitted. Are there any cancellation rights or penalties? Such agreements define what recourse the copyright holder has should royalties not be paid. See how complicated a little concept becomes when legal documents must be drafted to capture what was agreed to? It will be pages and pages of documentation that unquestionably requires a lawyer’s review. So we can be assured that the copyright holder will never sign anything related to his copyright without having his lawyer draft the documentation.
“So it is now quite obvious why he might never grant requests. Even if he wanted to, it will have to go to a lawyer to draft a legally binding agreement. That costs money, every single time, let alone for hundreds of them a year. There is only one solution to this: Never grant permission.”
Beth was quick to see this. “I see where you are going. What if I offered in the letter to pay for the costs?”
“Now you are talking,” I said. “But, unfortunately, you don’t have enough time to go through the whole process. Let’s keep thinking and see if we can find a good solution to all the issues he might have.”
I then explained that the second reason reflects the concern that anybody granting a license for anything would have, which is that they could face potential “abuse” by the recipient. I explained that from a legal standpoint, if an entity doesn’t have any authorization, it is clear that they are infringing on a copyright and actions to stop them can be immediate. However, once any kind of authorization is granted, then if they break the signed contract and start infringing on it, any attempt to stop it is not immediate. Ceasing such use requires a court proceeding, which might be lengthy and costly. Once the authorization is signed, the person with malicious intent can claim that they have the right to continue. They can make up whatever reasons they want. Under these kinds of circumstances, one will need a court order and lawyers to debate the legitimacy of the claims of each party.
Also, in the original contract, there most likely is a section dealing with potential infringements, and it specifies that if the copyright holder is forced to go to court to enforce their rights, then the infringer is liable for all the legal costs of the copyright holder—that is, assuming that the copyright holder wins the case. If the infringer is a company, then the copyright holder knows that if they file a lawsuit, they will ultimately be able to recoup the legal costs. However, if the infringer is an individual, it would be exceptionally difficult to collect any costs from individuals. So, this fear of potential abuse, by itself, is enough to never sign any authorization with any entity that would not enable an easy and apparent way to enforce infringement judgments.
The third reason is the inconvenience and the “trouble” factor. Assuming that the first two reasons would have not been real concerns and the copyright holder was willing to sign a document that he didn’t have to pass by a lawyer, think about what he would have to do then to actually accommodate the request. He would need to dictate a letter, explaining exactly what he is, and is not, authorizing. An assistant then needs to type it up. He’ll need to proof it before signing. Then it must be sent in the mail. Well, it might not be much, but still, it is a pain in the butt, which most people would rather avoid, and particularly if it happens a lot and makes no money.
“So,” I told Beth, “if there is a solution, it has to address all three of the above issues.” I continued, “I would write a completely different letter, based on the conversation so far. Additionally, it must be something that he will feel safe to sign, without needing to forward it to his lawyer. But there is one additional problem that I can’t predict, nor control, nor influence much, on such short notice. However, you might be able to, and that would be your part. If you can make it happen, then the probability will increase substantially; otherwise, I’m not so sure it will work, particularly given the short time constraint.”
“What is it I need to do?” she asked.
I explained, “The letter could be perfect, but not if he doesn’t get to read it. I also must assume that, given the hundreds of requests a year that he never responds to, he most likely stopped reading such letters and tosses them as soon as he realizes what they are. Worse yet, he may have already given instructions to his assistant to never pass them on to him.”
“So, what can I do?” Beth asked.
I replied, “You have already initiated a phone conversation with his assistant, and it seems like she responded well to you, since in my opinion, she was very patient and gave you quite a bit of her time in a sympathetic way. So, what you need to do is call her again. Be nice and plead and appeal to her to do you one small favor. Be sure to tell her that you fully understand that it might not yield results. But all you are imploring her to do is to put the letter in front of him and tell him that you sounded like a real nice and smart girl, and that is why she brings the letter to his attention. At that point, tell her, ‘You would have done all I’m begging of you to do, and I’ll be forever grateful.’
“So, as you see,” I said, “from this point on, the biggest responsibility is yours. If you succeed, we stand a good chance. If not, well, it was a good try.”
We then started composing the letter that I recommended she send. I told her to make sure to send it via FedEx with a returned paid-up FedEx envelope, so the only thing the copyright holder would need to do is to sign the letter and put it in the envelope. Beth seemed to have been quite happy when she left.
The next day she called and told me that she talked to the assistant and that the assistant promised to do what she had asked. “But,” said Beth, “I spoke to my teacher and showed her your letter. She thought it was a bad idea and didn’t recommend it at all. I’m not sure I explained the reasoning all that well. She insisted that the letter she drafted was a much better approach. Dad, what should I do?”
I asked, “Which letter do you think would be better?” She replied, “I don’t know. You are my father, but she is my teacher and I’m confused.”
I said, “Beth, for years I told you to seek advice, but I always emphasized that the final judgment must be yours and yours alone. So, think logically, reassess the situation, decide which approach you believe to be a better one, and go with that decision. Good luck to you!”
I can imagine how difficult a decision it must have been for her. At that age, many teenagers believe that their teachers know everything better than the rest of the world, so how do you decide? Ultimately, Beth decided to go with my recommendation. The letter she sent was a two-page letter. The first page was designed to be long enough to make sure that it conveyed all the information to catch his attention and sympathy, but not too long so as to minimize the probability that he’d get impatient in the middle of reading it and just toss it away. The first page was:
[Name]
[Address]
[Date]
Subject: “Hit the Road Jack”—Royalties*
Dear Mr. [Name]:
My name is Beth Kronfeld and I’m a junior at [____] High School. I produced a documentary TV clip about a wonderful human being who works as a collector at a toll booth. The person has worked there for over 20 years. He makes the experience joyous for drivers who pass his booth. He is absolutely beloved by everybody who lives in the vicinity. My segment has won awards in local, regional and state-wide competitions, and recently was selected in a nation-wide competition as one of the 16 finalists. CNN is planning to broadcast live, in three weeks, the selection of the top three. However, I can’t proceed to the next level without your kind consideration.
Because it was a segment about a beloved toll booth collector named Jack, I used in the background the song “Hit the Road Jack.”
CNN informed me that they will not be willing to accept my clip for the final live competition, unless I obtained a specific permission from the copyright holder of the song. I know that generally it is a complicated contract that requires lawyers. However, please see on the following page a simple release paragraph that grants a one-time use, limited to 30 days. It is a special and specific authorization, to use the song only in conjunction with CNN’s program related to this competition. It is also worded in a very definitive way to ensure that there is no possibility of any kind of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or any kind of a potential for “abuse.”
I would be extremely thankful for your consideration. Please, read the release paragraph on the following page, and if you are convinced that I presented the release language in an accurate way, I would appreciate your magnanimity.
Thank you so much, for your consideration,
Beth Kronfeld
Page two was as follows:
A limited one-time, special purpose release for the song “Hit the Road Jack”
I [name] am the holder of the copyrighted song “Hit the Road Jack.” I hereby grant a special thirty-day permission, from [date to date], to CNN to broadcast, without fee, Beth Kronfeld’s TV clip, which plays the above song in the background.
This permission is granted specifically for the above-mentioned clip only. No other broadcasting of any kind is permissible under this release. This release is in no way subject to any time extensions. It will automatically expire on [date].
CNN implicitly agrees, and Beth Kronfeld explicitly agrees, by her signature, that this release cannot be used in any way to claim that the granting of this release implies other agreements or intentions, or understandings, or any other rights, or claims, that are not specifically written in this release.
Signature ________________________ |
Signature ________________________ |
Name ________________________ |
Name Beth Kronfeld |
Date ________________________ |
Date ________________________ |
Beth sent the letter via FedEx. Four days later, I received a call from her. She didn’t say, “Hi, Dad,” which she normally does. The first thing I heard was, “Dad, you are a genius!” She got the signature; she was excited to no end. At the finals, aired on CNN as planned, she won second place and got to see her creation being played over and over again. She was ecstatic.
In summary, I hope you got a good sense from the four examples in this section of what influencing really entails. I believe that the examples clearly illustrate that the word “influencing” is conceptually easy to understand, but the execution is not so trivial, nor easy. At the end, it all follows simple logic. Practically everything is based on logic and experience. However, please be mindful of what I stated at the beginning of the book, when I defined what insightfulness requires. I emphasized two key words—correct and complete understanding and analyses. As the last example of the music icon demonstrated so vividly, it may appear simple, but it is not. Beware, logic oftentimes appears sound and compelling but, unbeknownst to the person, may not always be correct or complete.
Also, for the sake of completeness, allow me to double-check that I don’t leave you with the wrong impression regarding what influencing really means. The examples demonstrated how influencing came into play at the most critical junctures when trying to affect the most important challenge and/or outcome. However, please don’t draw the conclusion that influencing is limited to single challenges, outcomes, or events. Although influencing the most important outcome is the crown jewel and the ultimate prize, in practicality, it never happens in isolation. In the same way that a complex piece of machinery will fail when even the most insignificant screw is misaligned, so it is also the case with influencing. Influencing refers to influencing a process, to the daily ongoing activities that attempt to anticipate and influence nearly every single step (important as well as trivial) along the path of achieving a goal from the very beginning to the very last step. Some may have a greater effect on the final outcome, while others may be trivial and perhaps even inconsequential. But just like the insignificant screw in the machinery, all have to be tended to and oiled appropriately, at the right time, and with as much care as possible. In other words: Influencing is a process. It is a constant effort that needs to be applied continuously, from the very beginning to the very end of the process of overcoming a challenge and achieving an objective.
*Author’s note: Subject was put here purposefully to suggest a legitimate inquiry for a royalty arrangement.