WEBVTT - How does power and influence shape our lives? 0:00:00.009 --> 0:00:02.789 This podcast was made on the lands of the Wurundjeri people, 0:00:03.250 --> 0:00:06.130 the Woi Wurrung and the Bunurong. We'd like to pay 0:00:06.130 --> 0:00:09.250 respects to their elders, past and present, and emerging. 0:00:14.560 --> 0:00:17.879 From the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences at the University 0:00:17.879 --> 0:00:20.360 of Melbourne, this is PsychTalks. 0:00:23.340 --> 0:00:26.059 Hi and welcome back to PsychTalks, where we explore some 0:00:26.059 --> 0:00:29.889 of the most interesting ideas in psychology and neuroscience. I'm 0:00:29.889 --> 0:00:32.860 Associate Professor Cassie Hayward and I'm joined once again by 0:00:32.860 --> 0:00:35.619 my fantastic co-host, Professor Nick Haslam. 0:00:35.900 --> 0:00:38.418 Thanks Cassie, and today we're talking about power, how it 0:00:38.418 --> 0:00:41.500 works and how it's used. Whether it's in the workplace, 0:00:41.610 --> 0:00:44.568 at home, or just in everyday conversations, our ability to 0:00:44.569 --> 0:00:46.979 persuade and influence other people can have a lasting effect 0:00:46.979 --> 0:00:48.419 on our lives and theirs. 0:00:48.930 --> 0:00:51.729 That's right, and guiding us through this exploration of power 0:00:51.729 --> 0:00:55.889 is Professor Jennifer Overbeck from Melbourne Business School. Jen's research 0:00:55.889 --> 0:00:58.759 explores how people experience and use power and what makes 0:00:58.759 --> 0:01:01.400 someone influential and why the best way to get people 0:01:01.400 --> 0:01:03.630 on board might not be as obvious as you think. 0:01:10.980 --> 0:01:14.260 Jen, welcome to PsychTalks. Um, I wonder if we can 0:01:14.260 --> 0:01:16.099 start just by you telling us a little bit about 0:01:16.099 --> 0:01:19.419 your background and how you ended up in Melbourne studying 0:01:19.419 --> 0:01:20.519 power and influence. 0:01:21.040 --> 0:01:23.370 OK, I will start with the, the last part of that. 0:01:23.540 --> 0:01:25.539 How did I end up studying power and influence and 0:01:25.540 --> 0:01:28.779 then trace my way to Melbourne. So, uh, a long 0:01:28.779 --> 0:01:30.809 time ago, before I ever went back to graduate school, 0:01:30.860 --> 0:01:34.160 I was working and I was in Los Angeles for, uh, 0:01:34.169 --> 0:01:36.660 a work event on the day that the Rodney King 0:01:36.660 --> 0:01:38.699 riots broke out, and I don't know if you remember that, 0:01:38.779 --> 0:01:39.720 but this is where 0:01:40.089 --> 0:01:42.919 Uh, a black motorist had been pulled over and beaten 0:01:42.919 --> 0:01:46.959 by white police officers. They were charged and tried, and 0:01:46.959 --> 0:01:49.680 then the verdict came out that they were not guilty 0:01:50.000 --> 0:01:54.269 in South Central LA exploded into violence and burning and 0:01:54.269 --> 0:01:57.599 looting and that sort of thing. And the work colleague 0:01:57.599 --> 0:02:00.279 I was with that day was complaining about how the 0:02:00.279 --> 0:02:03.510 people in South Central were responding to injustice by just 0:02:03.510 --> 0:02:06.900 destroying their own neighbourhoods and destroying where they lived. 0:02:07.000 --> 0:02:09.720 He didn't understand it and it seemed really counterproductive and 0:02:09.720 --> 0:02:12.720 irrational to him. And my response was, look, they, they 0:02:12.720 --> 0:02:14.910 tried working the system, they tried going to court, didn't 0:02:14.910 --> 0:02:18.600 work out for them. And now they're responding by seizing 0:02:18.600 --> 0:02:21.758 whatever powers available to them, right? Which is to destroy 0:02:21.758 --> 0:02:25.279 what's immediately in their context. And he didn't get that 0:02:25.279 --> 0:02:28.160 and we never resolved our discussion. And the, the issue 0:02:28.160 --> 0:02:28.839 stuck with me. 0:02:29.038 --> 0:02:32.500 And a few years later, I found myself pursuing a 0:02:32.500 --> 0:02:35.750 PhD in social psychology at the University of Colorado and 0:02:35.750 --> 0:02:38.500 looking for, you know, research topics. And I just thought, 0:02:38.550 --> 0:02:41.470 this is, this is something that's been on my mind 0:02:41.470 --> 0:02:44.309 for years. I was working in a stereotyping lab and 0:02:44.309 --> 0:02:48.130 I said, well, let's look at how power shows up in, um, 0:02:48.149 --> 0:02:51.750 interracial context and interethnic contexts. And so that was the 0:02:51.750 --> 0:02:54.679 beginning and it stuck with me, um, throughout my career. 0:02:55.270 --> 0:02:58.429 So I did a PhD in social psych. I was 0:02:58.429 --> 0:03:03.070 always interested in business and bringing the questions and answers 0:03:03.070 --> 0:03:05.660 of research back into a business context. So I did 0:03:06.139 --> 0:03:09.949 a postdoc in organisational behaviour at Stanford, which is where 0:03:09.949 --> 0:03:12.740 I went, met you. Uh, you did the same postdoc 0:03:12.740 --> 0:03:15.070 right after me. And so that was, it was a 0:03:15.070 --> 0:03:16.429 great opportunity to meet you, Cassie. 0:03:16.889 --> 0:03:19.649 And then, um, I was an academic in the US 0:03:19.649 --> 0:03:22.809 at USC, University of Southern California, and Utah, and then 0:03:22.809 --> 0:03:26.490 I got the opportunity to come here to Melbourne. It 0:03:26.490 --> 0:03:28.729 was supposed to be just a few years, you know, 0:03:28.889 --> 0:03:33.050 adventure overseas, but for lots of different reasons, it ended 0:03:33.050 --> 0:03:35.199 up sticking. And so I've been in Melbourne now for 0:03:35.199 --> 0:03:36.990 11 years at Melbourne Business School 0:03:36.990 --> 0:03:38.369 and officially Australian. 0:03:38.740 --> 0:03:40.820 Officially Australian since 2020. Yep. 0:03:41.539 --> 0:03:44.539 Well that's great. So look, um, as the one person 0:03:44.539 --> 0:03:47.610 who doesn't have a Stanford pedigree, can you explain to 0:03:47.610 --> 0:03:50.500 me then what does a psychologist mean by power and influence? 0:03:50.699 --> 0:03:52.440 Can you define what those terms mean? 0:03:52.619 --> 0:03:55.580 Yeah, absolutely. Um, I was going to say, Nick, that 0:03:55.580 --> 0:03:57.460 I would go very slowly so that, you know, you 0:03:57.460 --> 0:03:58.979 can definitely understand it. 0:04:00.759 --> 0:04:03.880 So these are actually terms that are debated more than 0:04:03.880 --> 0:04:07.119 you might expect among psychologists, but I think at this 0:04:07.119 --> 0:04:11.160 point there's a consensus that psychologists typically define power in 0:04:11.160 --> 0:04:14.940 terms of asymmetrical control over valued resources. So this is where, 0:04:15.399 --> 0:04:18.479 you know, person A controls resources that person B needs 0:04:18.480 --> 0:04:20.940 and person B can't get them anywhere else. And 0:04:21.250 --> 0:04:25.540 Um, then recently, uh, a few more psychologists have started 0:04:25.540 --> 0:04:27.618 to say it's not just that you control the resources, 0:04:27.660 --> 0:04:30.209 it's what you do with them. And so A is 0:04:30.209 --> 0:04:33.339 using the fact that B relies on those resources to 0:04:33.339 --> 0:04:36.510 make B do things that they don't necessarily want to do, right? 0:04:36.619 --> 0:04:40.339 So power is the ability to compel somebody to engage 0:04:40.339 --> 0:04:42.660 in an activity that they don't wish to or to 0:04:42.660 --> 0:04:44.799 believe something that they don't believe, etc. 0:04:45.390 --> 0:04:49.250 And we can distinguish that from influence and the language 0:04:49.250 --> 0:04:51.130 gets a little bit messy because we tend to use 0:04:51.130 --> 0:04:54.730 these terms to mean multiple different things. So influence on 0:04:54.730 --> 0:04:58.178 a large scale means, or at a, at a high level, 0:04:58.570 --> 0:05:01.089 means that we are trying to elicit a change in 0:05:01.089 --> 0:05:01.670 another person. 0:05:02.390 --> 0:05:04.059 And you can do that in various ways. So you 0:05:04.059 --> 0:05:06.500 can use power to influence, I can make you do 0:05:06.500 --> 0:05:09.500 something that elicits a change, but I can also try 0:05:09.500 --> 0:05:11.739 to get you to change out of your own free 0:05:11.738 --> 0:05:15.539 will and free choice. And that's where I'm not relying 0:05:15.540 --> 0:05:17.660 on power to do that, but relying on something that 0:05:17.660 --> 0:05:21.730 we'll call persuasive influence. That's something that, uh,a phrase that 0:05:21.730 --> 0:05:24.380 I like to use to keep that distinction straight. And 0:05:24.380 --> 0:05:27.140 persuasive influence is basically B has a choice, B can 0:05:27.140 --> 0:05:29.779 do the thing A is asking or not do the thing. 0:05:30.130 --> 0:05:32.769 And A is trying to set up the conditions to 0:05:32.769 --> 0:05:34.850 bring B into alignment so that B will choose to 0:05:34.850 --> 0:05:35.410 do the thing. 0:05:35.609 --> 0:05:38.410 And Jen, building on that definition, what's a good way 0:05:38.410 --> 0:05:42.850 to think about those differences between power and then persuasive influence? 0:05:42.970 --> 0:05:46.070 What are some examples that people might kind of recognise? 0:05:46.450 --> 0:05:49.899 Yeah. So I think a really obvious context that many 0:05:49.899 --> 0:05:53.618 people can relate to immediately is thinking about work, thinking 0:05:53.619 --> 0:05:56.459 about your boss, for example. So your boss might want 0:05:56.459 --> 0:05:58.469 you to do something. Maybe they want you to build 0:05:58.470 --> 0:06:02.738 a new AI training program for your team. And so 0:06:02.738 --> 0:06:04.420 they could ask you to do it. 0:06:04.859 --> 0:06:06.739 They could tell you how great it would be for 0:06:06.738 --> 0:06:10.140 your career progression. Um, they could even say that they 0:06:10.140 --> 0:06:12.459 don't know how AI works and they really, really need 0:06:12.459 --> 0:06:14.578 your help to do it. And these are all examples 0:06:14.579 --> 0:06:16.730 of persuasive influence where it's up to you, at least 0:06:16.730 --> 0:06:19.179 it sounds like you can say no. Um, you can 0:06:19.178 --> 0:06:20.820 make the choice whether to do it, but the boss 0:06:20.820 --> 0:06:22.339 is trying to get you to do it. 0:06:22.920 --> 0:06:24.609 But then on the other hand, let's say you do 0:06:24.609 --> 0:06:27.119 say no, the boss could come back and say, yeah, well, hm, 0:06:27.369 --> 0:06:29.250 you know that other project you're working on, the one 0:06:29.250 --> 0:06:31.410 that's really great for your career, and you think it's 0:06:31.410 --> 0:06:33.130 going to put you in front of the CEO and 0:06:33.130 --> 0:06:34.850 lead to a meteoric rise and you really want to 0:06:34.850 --> 0:06:37.510 do it? If you don't do this AI project for me, 0:06:37.690 --> 0:06:39.618 you're not going to be doing that project anymore. I'm 0:06:39.619 --> 0:06:40.589 going to take you off of it. 0:06:40.850 --> 0:06:44.089 And that's where the boss is using their ability to 0:06:44.089 --> 0:06:47.700 control the work that you do, control where your efforts go. uh, 0:06:47.779 --> 0:06:49.779 as a source of power so that they can compel 0:06:49.779 --> 0:06:51.659 you to do something that you don't really want to do. 0:06:51.940 --> 0:06:53.409 And so obviously we see that in a lot of 0:06:53.410 --> 0:06:56.739 different contexts, but you know, it's that difference between I'll 0:06:56.738 --> 0:07:00.540 find the levers that bring you into alignment versus, now 0:07:00.540 --> 0:07:02.488 I'm just going to find something that I can hold 0:07:02.488 --> 0:07:04.099 over your head and force you to do what I want. 0:07:04.220 --> 0:07:06.700 I'm getting very worried because Nick's actually my boss, so 0:07:06.700 --> 0:07:08.808 he might be getting a lot of ideas from this interview. 0:07:08.850 --> 0:07:10.690 I already had lots of ideas, Cassie, and none of 0:07:10.690 --> 0:07:14.760 them work. No, no, no power, no influence, um. 0:07:15.540 --> 0:07:18.339 And why is this important? So how does power and 0:07:18.339 --> 0:07:21.380 persuasive influence differ from power without persuasive influence? You know, 0:07:21.420 --> 0:07:22.880 what do those two things look like? 0:07:23.500 --> 0:07:26.940 So this harkens back to some of my favourite research 0:07:26.940 --> 0:07:29.820 that I've done in 2011 with my colleagues Alison Fragale 0:07:29.820 --> 0:07:33.239 and Maggie Neale. We ran a series of studies looking 0:07:33.239 --> 0:07:37.450 at if you have power and status versus power without status, 0:07:37.619 --> 0:07:40.709 and status is a it's a source of persuasive influence. 0:07:40.790 --> 0:07:43.149 So one of the reasons that people respond to you 0:07:43.149 --> 0:07:46.790 voluntarily is that they respect and admire you. They think 0:07:46.790 --> 0:07:49.570 that you're worth following. And so if you say something, 0:07:49.670 --> 0:07:51.989 they take it seriously, they find it persuasive and they 0:07:51.989 --> 0:07:56.309 agree willingly, but, but they agree. And in that series 0:07:56.309 --> 0:07:58.708 of studies, some of the, what we found was that 0:07:58.709 --> 0:08:02.920 if you have power, that's something that could be regarded 0:08:02.920 --> 0:08:04.500 negatively by other people. 0:08:04.920 --> 0:08:07.559 But as long as you had status, it was regarded positively. 0:08:07.679 --> 0:08:10.760 So people who had power and status were seen as dominant, 0:08:10.880 --> 0:08:14.440 but also warm. And it was expected that if you're 0:08:14.440 --> 0:08:16.279 going to interact with somebody like that, it's going to 0:08:16.279 --> 0:08:17.619 be a positive interaction. 0:08:18.190 --> 0:08:21.140 But if you interact with somebody who has power without status, 0:08:21.309 --> 0:08:26.369 they're regarded as dominant, but cold, and people anticipate that 0:08:26.380 --> 0:08:29.309 that interaction is going to be negative. They anticipate, it's, 0:08:29.359 --> 0:08:33.440 it's something like, um, airport security, right? So I'm going 0:08:33.440 --> 0:08:35.789 to go up and, and hopefully you get to walk 0:08:35.789 --> 0:08:38.468 right by airport security and nothing happens. But if they 0:08:38.469 --> 0:08:40.619 stop you and they're like, Excuse me, can you come 0:08:40.619 --> 0:08:42.739 over here, you know, you immediately have that reaction like, oh, 0:08:42.789 --> 0:08:43.630 this isn't going to be good. 0:08:44.408 --> 0:08:46.848 Well, it's a high power person. They can control whether 0:08:46.848 --> 0:08:49.629 you get to pass security and get on your plane, 0:08:50.049 --> 0:08:52.488 but they, they're not in a high status role. And 0:08:52.489 --> 0:08:54.267 that's actually one of the roles that we looked at 0:08:54.268 --> 0:08:57.039 in our, in our research. You anticipate that this is 0:08:57.039 --> 0:09:00.049 going to be a negative interaction that obstructs your goals. 0:09:00.359 --> 0:09:06.349 And people actually have an anticipatory bad, um, approach to 0:09:06.349 --> 0:09:08.919 somebody like that. So if, if you're in airport security, 0:09:09.000 --> 0:09:13.820 I might come to that interaction with my own sense of, um, 0:09:13.840 --> 0:09:17.020 bristliness and unfriendliness and that sort of thing. 0:09:17.299 --> 0:09:21.020 And then there's other research by other colleagues, um, primarily 0:09:21.020 --> 0:09:25.099 Nate Fast and Adam Galinsky, that says it's actually not 0:09:25.099 --> 0:09:28.380 wrong to expect that kind of negative response from the 0:09:28.380 --> 0:09:32.599 TSA agent. People who are in powerful roles but recognise 0:09:32.599 --> 0:09:36.854 that they're not respected by others, tend to assign other 0:09:36.854 --> 0:09:40.155 people like more humiliating and degrading activities. 0:09:40.215 --> 0:09:43.174 Um, so they, they kind of restore the balance by 0:09:43.174 --> 0:09:45.695 putting the other person down. So it has a lot 0:09:45.695 --> 0:09:49.815 of consequences to try to interact in a way where 0:09:49.815 --> 0:09:52.093 you're relying on your power, but you're not using any 0:09:52.094 --> 0:09:55.934 of that persuasive influence because you can, um, you can 0:09:55.934 --> 0:09:59.775 contribute to this perception that you're a difficult, unpleasant, cold 0:09:59.775 --> 0:10:03.770 person and that somebody should be, um, resistant to you. 0:10:03.950 --> 0:10:07.030 But there are a couple of other implications too, so I'll, 0:10:07.109 --> 0:10:10.650 I'll just tell you two others. The first one is 0:10:10.989 --> 0:10:14.309 that when we use power, we can achieve compliance. So 0:10:14.309 --> 0:10:16.069 people will do the thing that we say because they 0:10:16.070 --> 0:10:19.109 have to, right? If, if you tell me you have 0:10:19.109 --> 0:10:21.059 to work on the AI project, or else you don't 0:10:21.059 --> 0:10:23.609 get to do the other one, I'll do your AI project, 0:10:23.950 --> 0:10:26.140 but I'm not going to put the best of myself 0:10:26.140 --> 0:10:26.789 into it. 0:10:27.280 --> 0:10:30.449 If it's something where the influence attempt is trying to 0:10:30.450 --> 0:10:33.250 persuade me to believe something, probably not going to believe it. 0:10:33.369 --> 0:10:35.280 I'll tell you I do. I'll spout all the right 0:10:35.280 --> 0:10:37.289 words and then I'll walk away and go back to 0:10:37.289 --> 0:10:40.309 what I used to believe. So we can get compliance 0:10:40.309 --> 0:10:43.210 out of power. But if we want commitment, if we 0:10:43.210 --> 0:10:46.010 want internalisation of the thing, then we really need to 0:10:46.010 --> 0:10:48.549 use persuasive influence because the person has to come along 0:10:49.000 --> 0:10:50.250 on that journey with us. 0:10:50.659 --> 0:10:55.500 And then the, um, other point is that when people 0:10:55.500 --> 0:10:59.580 primarily use power rather than adding in some of that 0:10:59.580 --> 0:11:04.440 persuasive influence, you're really, they're, they're behaving as tyrants. And 0:11:04.460 --> 0:11:07.780 work by Dacher Keltner tells us that when you have 0:11:07.780 --> 0:11:11.059 a very tyrannical leader who doesn't give other people a 0:11:11.059 --> 0:11:14.819 choice in how to behave and how to be led, 0:11:15.299 --> 0:11:17.669 then you get more, um, 0:11:18.289 --> 0:11:22.608 likelihood of organised resistance arising and of ultimately that leader 0:11:22.609 --> 0:11:25.770 being taken down. So if you want to maintain your 0:11:25.770 --> 0:11:29.409 leadership over a period of time, it's definitely more sustainable 0:11:29.409 --> 0:11:32.750 to have both the persuasive influence and the power. 0:11:33.049 --> 0:11:35.488 So any tyrannical leaders who are listening to this podcast 0:11:35.489 --> 0:11:36.669 should think again. 0:11:37.169 --> 0:11:39.329 And I hope all the tyrannical leaders do because they 0:11:39.330 --> 0:11:40.549 really need to hear this. 0:11:41.489 --> 0:11:43.770 Before we, well, maybe instead of going down the tyrannical 0:11:43.770 --> 0:11:46.989 leader path, let's say a listener is trying to, 0:11:47.539 --> 0:11:49.630 convince their boss to take on an idea they have, 0:11:49.710 --> 0:11:53.190 so the power is with the boss. What can they 0:11:53.190 --> 0:11:56.210 do in that scenario, how can they put forward their 0:11:56.549 --> 0:11:59.229 idea in a way that's most likely to be approved? 0:11:59.469 --> 0:11:59.869 Yeah. 0:12:00.440 --> 0:12:02.520 It's a really great question. And part of what I 0:12:02.520 --> 0:12:05.440 like about the question is what you didn't say, because 0:12:05.440 --> 0:12:10.020 it highlights the way most people approach influencing and an 0:12:10.020 --> 0:12:12.599 opportunity that they miss. So if you want to try 0:12:12.599 --> 0:12:16.000 to persuade your boss of something, it's important not to 0:12:16.000 --> 0:12:19.640 think of this as a one shot interaction, where if 0:12:19.640 --> 0:12:21.390 I have the right message or if I pick the 0:12:21.390 --> 0:12:23.440 right time or if I say it the right way, 0:12:23.559 --> 0:12:25.099 then I'm going to persuade my boss. 0:12:25.479 --> 0:12:28.760 Influence, when you don't have power or when you have 0:12:28.760 --> 0:12:31.479 less power, it's a long game. So power is a 0:12:31.479 --> 0:12:33.559 short term game. If you need to get something done 0:12:33.559 --> 0:12:35.640 right away, power is the most efficient way to do it. 0:12:36.200 --> 0:12:38.319 If you need to influence people and you need them 0:12:38.320 --> 0:12:41.619 to accept what you're saying, then you have to have 0:12:41.880 --> 0:12:44.799 established the foundation of that influence a long time before 0:12:44.799 --> 0:12:47.000 you need it. So you have to see me if 0:12:47.000 --> 0:12:48.659 I want to influence you, you have to see me 0:12:48.659 --> 0:12:50.880 as a credible person. You have to respect me or 0:12:50.880 --> 0:12:53.640 admire me. You have to think I'm legitimate. You have 0:12:53.640 --> 0:12:56.150 to think that I'm worth listening to, that there's, there's 0:12:56.150 --> 0:12:58.500 going to be a value in listening to me. 0:12:58.840 --> 0:13:01.640 And so if I am trying to influence my boss, 0:13:01.679 --> 0:13:05.348 if I show up late. I've just been watching the 0:13:05.349 --> 0:13:07.510 show Enlightened on HBO and I don't know if either 0:13:07.510 --> 0:13:09.969 of you have seen it, but there's this character, Amy Jellicoe, 0:13:10.520 --> 0:13:13.419 who's full of idealism and really wants to influence people, 0:13:13.760 --> 0:13:16.039 but at the same time, she shows up to work late, 0:13:16.159 --> 0:13:19.239 she doesn't actually do her job when she's there. She's 0:13:19.239 --> 0:13:22.020 very narcissistic and she doesn't pay attention to other people. 0:13:22.239 --> 0:13:25.429 And so every time she asks for something, people just say, like, 0:13:25.479 --> 0:13:27.630 why should I listen to you? And so over and 0:13:27.630 --> 0:13:29.479 over and over she doesn't get what she wants. And 0:13:29.479 --> 0:13:31.440 then finally there's a point in the, in the show 0:13:31.440 --> 0:13:33.770 where she has something of value to offer and that 0:13:33.770 --> 0:13:35.000 causes somebody to listen. 0:13:35.500 --> 0:13:38.059 You have to think ahead. So what I would be 0:13:38.059 --> 0:13:41.659 telling people who have trouble influencing their boss is stop 0:13:41.659 --> 0:13:44.380 thinking about the immediate thing you want to influence about 0:13:44.380 --> 0:13:47.179 and start thinking about your relationship with your boss. Can 0:13:47.179 --> 0:13:49.340 you invest more in your relationship with your boss? Can 0:13:49.340 --> 0:13:50.619 you show that you're on the team? 0:13:51.205 --> 0:13:54.233 Can you exhibit some behaviours that show a common identity 0:13:54.234 --> 0:13:56.565 and commitment to the team that you are on with 0:13:56.565 --> 0:14:00.515 your boss? And can you demonstrate your competence? So really 0:14:00.515 --> 0:14:03.244 maybe focus for a while on getting a few wins 0:14:03.244 --> 0:14:06.645 and showing that you're somebody worth investing in. And once 0:14:06.645 --> 0:14:09.645 you have that foundation, then you can go in and 0:14:09.645 --> 0:14:11.955 you can have an ask and you just find that 0:14:11.955 --> 0:14:14.434 the person's much more receptive to the things that you 0:14:14.434 --> 0:14:15.064 have to say. 0:14:16.000 --> 0:14:17.799 Now, obviously there are things you can do in the moment, 0:14:17.880 --> 0:14:21.919 but my number one advice is to slow down, plan 0:14:21.919 --> 0:14:22.859 ahead and build a relationship. 0:14:23.640 --> 0:14:25.989 So that's a great scenario. How about another scenario that 0:14:25.989 --> 0:14:27.799 a listener might be facing? Let's say they're trying to 0:14:27.799 --> 0:14:30.520 go for a promotion. Do the same advice apply or 0:14:30.520 --> 0:14:32.539 is there something different in that case? 0:14:32.760 --> 0:14:35.109 Well, definitely I would say if you're going to go 0:14:35.109 --> 0:14:36.799 in for a promotion, you want to have a history 0:14:36.799 --> 0:14:40.789 of being a team player and, uh, showing competence, because 0:14:40.799 --> 0:14:42.890 otherwise there's not going to be much of an argument 0:14:42.890 --> 0:14:43.760 for that promotion. 0:14:44.239 --> 0:14:48.280 But then of course, you also need some strategies for 0:14:48.280 --> 0:14:50.440 making the ask, right? And we can think of this 0:14:50.440 --> 0:14:53.000 a couple of different ways. Some of the recent research 0:14:53.000 --> 0:14:55.080 that I've been doing with one of my PhD students, 0:14:55.169 --> 0:14:59.119 Craig Lewis, is looking at the amount of power versus 0:14:59.119 --> 0:15:04.880 the amount of persuasive influence that underlie particular influence tactics 0:15:04.880 --> 0:15:07.799 that you might use. So asking politely is an influence tactic. 0:15:07.880 --> 0:15:14.140 That's a very high-persuasive influence, very-low power tactic, and threatening to, um, 0:15:14.239 --> 0:15:19.150 fire somebody, that's a very high-power, low-persuasion tactic. And so 0:15:19.150 --> 0:15:22.309 you would want to be thinking about, um, you know, what's, 0:15:22.390 --> 0:15:25.469 what's my boss's level of resistance likely to be? Chances 0:15:25.469 --> 0:15:28.190 are they're going to resist a little bit giving you 0:15:28.190 --> 0:15:30.830 a promotion. Chances are that's going to be costly. They're 0:15:30.830 --> 0:15:33.270 going to need to know why it makes sense. You're 0:15:33.270 --> 0:15:35.070 going to have to, to help them understand it. 0:15:35.419 --> 0:15:38.299 But I would plan and think about a few arguments 0:15:38.299 --> 0:15:41.299 that rely on different influence tactics that stay very much 0:15:41.299 --> 0:15:42.520 in that choice space. 0:15:43.380 --> 0:15:45.109 So one of the things you don't want to do, 0:15:45.750 --> 0:15:47.309 going in with somebody who has a lot more power 0:15:47.309 --> 0:15:49.549 than you is try to act like you have power 0:15:49.549 --> 0:15:51.580 that you don't, or try to overreach on the amount 0:15:51.580 --> 0:15:54.270 of power that you have. Um, we don't actually have 0:15:54.270 --> 0:15:58.130 evidence about this yet. We're, we're testing this currently or, 0:15:58.179 --> 0:16:01.789 or imminently, but, um, one of our hypotheses is that 0:16:01.789 --> 0:16:03.900 if you try to use a tactic that you don't 0:16:03.900 --> 0:16:05.719 have the power to use, it's going to backfire. It's 0:16:05.719 --> 0:16:08.429 actually going to reduce your power for future influencing. So 0:16:08.429 --> 0:16:09.950 you don't want to overreach, you want to stay in 0:16:09.950 --> 0:16:12.510 that influencing space, pick a few different tactics. 0:16:12.909 --> 0:16:15.750 And think about, all right, my boss says no when 0:16:15.750 --> 0:16:17.590 I just ask for a raise, what do I come 0:16:17.590 --> 0:16:19.309 back with? What's the next step? Well one of the, 0:16:19.549 --> 0:16:22.130 one of my next things might be to explain why 0:16:22.549 --> 0:16:25.109 it's good for the company. So here are the benefits 0:16:25.109 --> 0:16:27.250 to the company of giving me a promotion and a raise, 0:16:27.590 --> 0:16:29.789 and if that still doesn't get a yes, then I 0:16:29.789 --> 0:16:32.429 can have a plan developed that says, here's how you 0:16:32.429 --> 0:16:35.549 can promote me, here's how we backfill my position, here's 0:16:35.549 --> 0:16:38.469 how my new position would work, and so I can 0:16:38.469 --> 0:16:40.650 help them imagine it. And if that doesn't work, then 0:16:40.650 --> 0:16:42.229 I can offer a compromise. 0:16:42.349 --> 0:16:44.695 Well, maybe you don't give me a promotion now, but 0:16:44.695 --> 0:16:47.494 maybe you agree to a set of benchmarks, and in 0:16:47.494 --> 0:16:50.114 6 months if I meet all those benchmarks, then maybe 0:16:50.294 --> 0:16:52.335 I can have a promotion then. And so you, you 0:16:52.335 --> 0:16:56.294 have a sequence of arguments ready, you anticipate what some 0:16:56.294 --> 0:16:58.174 of the resistance is going to be, and you try 0:16:58.174 --> 0:17:01.715 as much as possible to stay in that persuasive space, 0:17:02.094 --> 0:17:04.334 instead of what some people do is say, well, you know, 0:17:04.454 --> 0:17:06.734 other people would appreciate me, and if you don't, I'll 0:17:06.734 --> 0:17:08.614 just have to go somewhere else. And so you're jumping 0:17:08.614 --> 0:17:10.744 right up to high power, right? And you're trying to 0:17:10.744 --> 0:17:12.574 make a threat and force them to do what you want. 0:17:13.069 --> 0:17:15.040 But you're not the powerful party in the room, and 0:17:15.040 --> 0:17:17.119 so you're just probably going to have a lot more 0:17:17.119 --> 0:17:21.660 space and success if you stay, uh, with persuasive influence. 0:17:21.959 --> 0:17:24.639 My guess is that a lot of these tactics differ 0:17:24.640 --> 0:17:27.119 in their success as a function of gender and age 0:17:27.119 --> 0:17:30.189 and ethnicity and those other variables. Has your work looked 0:17:30.189 --> 0:17:34.389 at how those variables play out in these scenarios? 0:17:34.599 --> 0:17:36.800 Yeah, so I haven't personally, but there is some really 0:17:36.800 --> 0:17:40.640 great research by Nick Hayes, uh, at Michigan State, who 0:17:40.640 --> 0:17:44.270 has looked at the fact that, um, men tend to 0:17:44.270 --> 0:17:47.069 use more what we would call power and women more 0:17:47.069 --> 0:17:50.550 what we would call status or persuasive influence. So, um, 0:17:50.790 --> 0:17:54.069 there are, as I'm sure that you and listeners would 0:17:54.069 --> 0:17:57.359 be familiar with, there are expectations for 0:17:57.994 --> 0:18:03.094 agentic versus warmth-oriented behaviour from men and women, right? And 0:18:03.094 --> 0:18:07.444 power is clearly more agentic and, um, persuasive influence also 0:18:07.444 --> 0:18:09.954 has agency in it, but it's a warmer form of 0:18:09.954 --> 0:18:12.744 agency because it recognises the importance of others. 0:18:13.150 --> 0:18:17.869 And so if we look at Nick's work, men both 0:18:17.869 --> 0:18:21.270 value and gravitate more toward power and then are rewarded 0:18:21.270 --> 0:18:25.979 more for power related behaviour. And for women, um, status 0:18:25.979 --> 0:18:30.469 is a much safer way to try to gain influence and, uh, 0:18:30.579 --> 0:18:33.810 and leads to less backlash against women. So we don't 0:18:33.810 --> 0:18:36.390 have data on the question yet, but based on that 0:18:36.390 --> 0:18:40.290 past work, my clear prediction is that if you are, um, 0:18:40.380 --> 0:18:42.849 a man, you're more likely to 0:18:43.270 --> 0:18:47.469 be able to use power without as much penalty, although 0:18:47.469 --> 0:18:51.209 I think everybody probably needs to balance power and persuasive influence. 0:18:51.430 --> 0:18:53.948 But for women, it may be particularly important to be 0:18:53.949 --> 0:18:57.489 able to use, um, persuasive influence and have those tactics available. 0:18:57.829 --> 0:19:00.510 And then I think that should extend as well to, 0:19:00.630 --> 0:19:04.780 you know, any member of a majority versus minority group 0:19:04.780 --> 0:19:07.189 or minoritised group, as designated by society. 0:19:07.270 --> 0:19:10.669 So if you're in a, a country's racial majority, you 0:19:10.670 --> 0:19:12.790 should probably find it easier to act with power. And 0:19:12.790 --> 0:19:15.969 if you're in a racial minority, then there are probably, um, 0:19:16.109 --> 0:19:19.229 sanctions for using power that you're not seen as entitled 0:19:19.229 --> 0:19:19.790 to use. 0:19:20.109 --> 0:19:23.560 So having privilege allows you to use power more successfully, 0:19:23.829 --> 0:19:25.468 but it's also true, isn't it, that there's a lot 0:19:25.469 --> 0:19:28.938 of ambivalence about exercise of power, maybe less if it's a, 0:19:29.109 --> 0:19:32.589 you know, white male leader than some other kinds, but 0:19:32.589 --> 0:19:34.599 it's not as if power gives you a blank slate. 0:19:35.060 --> 0:19:36.589 Not only does it not give you a blank slate, 0:19:36.680 --> 0:19:39.079 I do a lot of executive education in my role 0:19:39.079 --> 0:19:42.420 at the business school, and so I'm regularly talking to 0:19:42.750 --> 0:19:45.359 CEOs and people who are at the very top levels 0:19:45.359 --> 0:19:48.198 of companies and I bring up the word 'power'. And 0:19:48.199 --> 0:19:50.079 you know, some people are perfectly comfortable with it, but 0:19:50.079 --> 0:19:52.439 a lot of people just immediately, no, no, no, I 0:19:52.790 --> 0:19:55.109 I'd like to be more influential, but I don't want power. 0:19:55.229 --> 0:19:57.389 Like that's not the thing. Power, power is not where 0:19:57.390 --> 0:20:01.040 I want to take my, my, uh, professional development. And 0:20:01.040 --> 0:20:03.030 I see this all the time. A few years ago, 0:20:03.069 --> 0:20:06.909 I was working with a, um, a prospective PhD student 0:20:06.910 --> 0:20:09.229 and we were doing an interview project and just talking 0:20:09.229 --> 0:20:11.629 to people who were in positions of power about how 0:20:11.630 --> 0:20:12.689 they thought about power. 0:20:13.050 --> 0:20:15.849 And I will always remember this one interviewee. She was 0:20:15.849 --> 0:20:19.609 somebody we had advanced knowledge of the person, the prospective 0:20:19.609 --> 0:20:22.280 student had worked with her, knew the people around her, 0:20:22.290 --> 0:20:25.050 and knew how she used power in her role. And 0:20:25.050 --> 0:20:28.050 she was really seen as a very coercive leader. Like 0:20:28.329 --> 0:20:31.989 she just told everybody what to do. She was unsparing. 0:20:32.130 --> 0:20:35.290 She could be very unpleasant and just, you know, a, 0:20:35.410 --> 0:20:36.750 a taskmaster. 0:20:37.010 --> 0:20:40.260 And we had a conversation with her, and her whole 0:20:40.260 --> 0:20:42.979 philosophy of power was, you've got to involve people, you 0:20:42.979 --> 0:20:46.260 have to have participation. You know I spent a tonne 0:20:46.260 --> 0:20:49.218 of energy trying to make sure that everybody's happy, etc 0:20:49.290 --> 0:20:49.958 etc etc. 0:20:50.670 --> 0:20:53.149 And I've seen this repeatedly, that there are people who 0:20:53.150 --> 0:20:56.270 value very much staying in that persuasive space, but they 0:20:56.270 --> 0:21:00.329 don't really understand what the full range of influencing looks like. 0:21:00.589 --> 0:21:03.670 And they, they try to be persuasive, they run into 0:21:03.670 --> 0:21:05.729 some resistance and they don't know what to do. And 0:21:05.729 --> 0:21:07.944 it's like, how do I move you, I don't know what 0:21:07.944 --> 0:21:09.665 to do. So I'm just going to jump up here 0:21:09.665 --> 0:21:11.944 and try to grab power and maybe that'll do something. 0:21:11.994 --> 0:21:14.744 And they, they, they don't understand that there's a whole 0:21:14.744 --> 0:21:18.415 range of tools that they might have between the two extremes, and, 0:21:18.494 --> 0:21:19.584 and they tend to just jump. 0:21:19.625 --> 0:21:21.823 And I think it's a very prevalent pattern. I mean, 0:21:21.864 --> 0:21:23.978 I can't give you data about it yet. But I 0:21:23.979 --> 0:21:25.379 think it's a really prevalent pattern. 0:21:25.739 --> 0:21:29.218 And Jeff Pfeffer at Stanford has argued that the people 0:21:29.219 --> 0:21:31.540 most successful at leading are the ones who are very 0:21:31.540 --> 0:21:34.780 deliberate and very conscious about what their power is, where 0:21:34.780 --> 0:21:36.380 it comes from, and how they want to use it. 0:21:36.459 --> 0:21:40.500 And it, it makes them more effective. And I completely 0:21:40.500 --> 0:21:41.160 agree with that. 0:21:41.380 --> 0:21:44.359 And yet the more implemental ones get more respected. 0:21:44.540 --> 0:21:45.119 They do. 0:21:45.369 --> 0:21:50.270 Yes, there's a mismatch. In fact, Joe Magee at NYU 0:21:50.270 --> 0:21:54.930 New York University has done a paper looking at how 0:21:54.930 --> 0:21:58.050 people approach power and how others view them based on 0:21:58.050 --> 0:22:00.930 how they approach power. And he found that people who 0:22:00.930 --> 0:22:04.410 are implemental, meaning you take your power and you act 0:22:04.410 --> 0:22:06.479 in a really decisive way, like just jump right in 0:22:06.479 --> 0:22:09.688 and do it, are seen as more powerful and admired 0:22:09.689 --> 0:22:13.250 more than power holders who are deliberative. In other words, 0:22:13.319 --> 0:22:15.040 who are thoughtful and really think about it. 0:22:15.380 --> 0:22:18.619 And although that's not exactly the same scenario, I really 0:22:18.619 --> 0:22:20.380 think that it hits on this idea that when we 0:22:20.380 --> 0:22:23.060 think of a leader, we think of strength. Certainly we 0:22:23.060 --> 0:22:25.890 know from political science that when people think of political leaders, 0:22:26.180 --> 0:22:29.119 especially when there's high threat in the environment, they're looking 0:22:29.119 --> 0:22:31.780 for somebody who's strong because that's a protector, right? That's 0:22:31.780 --> 0:22:35.800 somebody who's going to, that strength should be a shield 0:22:35.800 --> 0:22:37.500 and an umbrella for the rest of us. 0:22:37.920 --> 0:22:41.800 And somebody who's more thoughtful or somebody who's more collaborative 0:22:41.800 --> 0:22:44.438 doesn't necessarily get the same support. So we have these 0:22:44.439 --> 0:22:47.589 stereotypes about power that say you want somebody who's, you know, 0:22:47.719 --> 0:22:50.479 going to crack heads, even though, as we said at 0:22:50.479 --> 0:22:52.679 the very beginning, in a lot of ways that's the 0:22:52.680 --> 0:22:54.379 less sustainable approach to power. 0:22:54.810 --> 0:22:57.890 I'll veer just very briefly into politics for a moment 0:22:57.890 --> 0:23:00.010 because my husband and I have all these discussions these 0:23:00.010 --> 0:23:03.050 days about Joe Biden. We're recording this episode at a 0:23:03.050 --> 0:23:05.130 time when there's a book that's just come out about 0:23:05.130 --> 0:23:07.410 he was too old and maybe shouldn't have been in 0:23:07.410 --> 0:23:10.119 his role. And you know, I had argued for a 0:23:10.119 --> 0:23:14.670 very long time that Biden seemed like a somewhat ineffective campaigner. 0:23:14.890 --> 0:23:17.390 He didn't communicate very much. He wasn't on the news 0:23:17.569 --> 0:23:20.810 and he wasn't putting forth that, that impression of strength 0:23:20.810 --> 0:23:23.349 that other candidates may have put forth. 0:23:23.670 --> 0:23:26.380 But I was arguing that he might have been a very, 0:23:26.489 --> 0:23:30.379 very effective leader because he's more focused on establishing partnerships 0:23:30.380 --> 0:23:33.530 and working with people and getting things done. Now, um, 0:23:33.660 --> 0:23:36.000 my husband's saying, well, what do you think now after 0:23:36.000 --> 0:23:39.099 the book came out, so no comment on that. But, uh, 0:23:39.140 --> 0:23:41.859 I do think that we look for the wrong signals 0:23:41.859 --> 0:23:45.119 and leaders, and I think that's true not only in politics, 0:23:45.180 --> 0:23:48.819 but in organisations. There's some great research by Cameron Anderson 0:23:48.819 --> 0:23:49.560 at Berkeley. 0:23:49.930 --> 0:23:52.429 That shows that if you have a group of people 0:23:52.430 --> 0:23:55.390 engaging in problem solving, let's say they're doing math questions, 0:23:55.810 --> 0:23:59.290 and there's a demonstrable answer, a correct and an incorrect 0:23:59.290 --> 0:24:02.010 answer to the math question, but you look at who 0:24:02.010 --> 0:24:05.609 delivers the answers more confidently. The most confident member of 0:24:05.609 --> 0:24:08.920 the group is more likely to be accorded status, even 0:24:08.920 --> 0:24:12.770 if their answer is demonstrably correct, uh, incorrect. And so yeah, 0:24:12.890 --> 0:24:15.339 I think that our instincts about how to pick leaders 0:24:15.339 --> 0:24:18.170 are very out of line with what serves us best 0:24:18.170 --> 0:24:19.229 in terms of leadership. 0:24:19.829 --> 0:24:24.569 That's terrifying, um, and following on from this high-powered politics 0:24:24.569 --> 0:24:29.458 and negotiation and executive education, my next question is how 0:24:29.459 --> 0:24:31.379 do I use this at home with my kids? How 0:24:31.380 --> 0:24:33.458 do I get my kids in from playing soccer when 0:24:33.459 --> 0:24:35.129 I need them to come in for dinner? 0:24:35.229 --> 0:24:39.979 Yeah, so, uh, Craig Lewis, my PhD student, uh, has 0:24:39.979 --> 0:24:44.420 two young kids, and he has, uh, throughout the time 0:24:44.420 --> 0:24:47.260 that we've worked together on this topic of influencing, I 0:24:47.260 --> 0:24:50.040 think what happens with his kids has been a major 0:24:50.339 --> 0:24:53.000 touchstone and inspiration for our work. So, 0:24:53.510 --> 0:24:57.310 Craig has actually printed out the two dimensional graph that 0:24:57.310 --> 0:24:59.819 we have showing all of the influence tactics as a 0:24:59.819 --> 0:25:02.660 poster on the wall in his office for his own purposes, 0:25:02.949 --> 0:25:05.429 but he found himself trying to get his kids to 0:25:05.430 --> 0:25:09.169 brush his teeth, brush their teeth for, not his, theirs, 0:25:09.949 --> 0:25:12.510 to brush their teeth before going to bed, and yeah, dad, 0:25:12.550 --> 0:25:14.139 I'll do it, yeah, yeah, I'll do it, I'll do it. 0:25:14.219 --> 0:25:15.750 and in the meanwhile they keep playing their games. 0:25:16.459 --> 0:25:20.780 And after a while doing this work on influencing, he 0:25:20.780 --> 0:25:23.420 started to bring it into his conversations with them and said, Look, 0:25:23.550 --> 0:25:25.639 what I'm doing right now is I am asking you, 0:25:25.780 --> 0:25:27.859 I'm asking you to brush your teeth and you have 0:25:27.859 --> 0:25:30.819 the choice. Like it is still up to you whether 0:25:30.819 --> 0:25:34.219 you comply with this. But ultimately I do have power, 0:25:34.500 --> 0:25:36.619 which means I can make you do it. I can 0:25:36.619 --> 0:25:37.978 pick you up and I can carry you in there. 0:25:38.020 --> 0:25:40.379 I can take away the Game Boy. I, you know, 0:25:40.430 --> 0:25:43.349 I can set up situations where you're going to have 0:25:43.349 --> 0:25:44.290 to go brush your teeth. 0:25:44.430 --> 0:25:47.719 Like as parents, I think it's very easy to start 0:25:47.719 --> 0:25:50.349 in a, in an influential space. You want to be 0:25:50.349 --> 0:25:52.589 respectful of your kids. You know, there's the whole love 0:25:52.589 --> 0:25:55.849 and logic approach of giving them choices. It's very rational, 0:25:56.430 --> 0:25:59.349 but kids are kids and they're, they're, they're doing what 0:25:59.349 --> 0:26:01.709 they want to do. And so sometimes we have to 0:26:01.709 --> 0:26:02.770 jump up to power. 0:26:03.040 --> 0:26:05.359 And I think what Craig has tried to do is 0:26:05.359 --> 0:26:08.119 to say, maybe there's a sequence of things that I 0:26:08.119 --> 0:26:10.280 can do that stay in the sort of middle power 0:26:10.280 --> 0:26:14.359 space where I've got 4 or 5 different tactics ready 0:26:14.359 --> 0:26:17.400 to go, and if asking them politely doesn't work, well, 0:26:17.479 --> 0:26:20.400 I kind of know my escalation pattern. And because we've 0:26:20.400 --> 0:26:23.079 had the conversation, because they know that ultimately this could 0:26:23.079 --> 0:26:27.889 get ugly, they often do choose at some point, but 0:26:27.910 --> 0:26:30.218 they felt like they had a choice and they felt like, 0:26:30.329 --> 0:26:32.909 you know, that they weren't just forced to do something. 0:26:32.989 --> 0:26:35.869 And he's felt like the long term effects of that 0:26:35.869 --> 0:26:36.989 have been really positive. 0:26:37.229 --> 0:26:40.000 I mean, in the parenting area, do you think all 0:26:40.000 --> 0:26:42.079 of this is partly because so many people now just 0:26:42.079 --> 0:26:45.069 think power in general is illegitimate and they're wary of 0:26:45.069 --> 0:26:46.270 using it even though they have it? 0:26:46.359 --> 0:26:50.719 Well, I have watched with interest some of the articles 0:26:50.719 --> 0:26:53.719 recently on gentle parenting and like the Gen Z, Gen 0:26:53.719 --> 0:26:58.280 Z trend to, to gentle parenting, and, um, I'm concerned 0:26:58.280 --> 0:27:03.739 about that because I think that there are power relations 0:27:03.739 --> 0:27:07.020 in the world regardless of how squeamish we may be 0:27:07.020 --> 0:27:07.260 about it. 0:27:07.339 --> 0:27:09.750 We also have a need and a desire for that. 0:27:09.859 --> 0:27:12.800 So there's a whole other line of research by, um, 0:27:12.859 --> 0:27:16.489 Aaron Kay at Duke University on a concept called compensatory 0:27:16.489 --> 0:27:19.920 control that says that when scary things happen in the world, 0:27:20.020 --> 0:27:23.619 people actually look around them to see that there's an 0:27:23.619 --> 0:27:24.829 agent in power. 0:27:24.979 --> 0:27:27.780 So if there's a hurricane, belief in God spikes. And 0:27:27.780 --> 0:27:30.219 so when bad things are happening, we want there to 0:27:30.219 --> 0:27:32.250 be a strong leader. We want to believe that there's 0:27:32.250 --> 0:27:34.849 somebody there who's watching out and there's order in the world, 0:27:34.859 --> 0:27:36.459 and there's somebody who's going to take care of it. 0:27:36.579 --> 0:27:40.458 And I think gentle parenting abdicates the power role in 0:27:40.459 --> 0:27:43.420 a lot of ways so that kids don't see that 0:27:43.420 --> 0:27:46.619 there is anybody to take that powerful role and it's 0:27:46.619 --> 0:27:49.978 just them, right? And they're the ones with power. But 0:27:49.979 --> 0:27:51.819 how scary is that? You don't know how the world, 0:27:52.339 --> 0:27:55.599 you don't know how to handle all the random terrors 0:27:55.599 --> 0:28:00.339 of the world. So I think, yeah, parents coming to 0:28:00.339 --> 0:28:03.170 understand that they have power and that they can possess 0:28:03.170 --> 0:28:06.060 that power, but they don't have to necessarily be using 0:28:06.060 --> 0:28:07.020 it all the time. 0:28:07.410 --> 0:28:09.770 That there's a choice and that they can interact with 0:28:09.770 --> 0:28:11.930 their kids in a way that keeps them in a 0:28:11.930 --> 0:28:15.930 space that respects their children, but with that boundary. Like 0:28:15.930 --> 0:28:18.410 I think that would be a really effective way for 0:28:18.410 --> 0:28:21.439 parents to be able to think. And, and there are 0:28:21.439 --> 0:28:24.329 lots of scholars out there who've looked at authoritative parenting 0:28:24.329 --> 0:28:26.770 and the benefits of it. And I just, I hope 0:28:26.770 --> 0:28:28.750 that they're getting attention these days too. 0:28:29.920 --> 0:28:31.649 Well, they've only been saying that for about 30 years, 0:28:31.770 --> 0:28:33.229 so let's let's hope. 0:28:33.349 --> 0:28:33.359 Yeah. 0:28:34.209 --> 0:28:37.089 And for some small goals for our listeners, what could 0:28:37.089 --> 0:28:39.369 they put into practise from today? Like what are 3 0:28:39.369 --> 0:28:43.920 things that they could do to, to maximise their, their 0:28:43.920 --> 0:28:44.880 influence in their life? 0:28:45.079 --> 0:28:46.530 Yeah, um. 0:28:46.969 --> 0:28:49.209 Well, I'll tell them what I often say when I'm 0:28:49.209 --> 0:28:52.170 doing workshops on this topic. Number one, I think they 0:28:52.170 --> 0:28:55.449 should do an audit of themselves to see what kind 0:28:55.449 --> 0:28:58.530 of power they have, what kind of resources do they 0:28:58.530 --> 0:29:02.780 control that, um, other people might value and give themselves 0:29:02.780 --> 0:29:04.640 credit for anything that might count. 0:29:05.650 --> 0:29:08.739 We talk in our research about 6 different kinds of resources, 0:29:08.810 --> 0:29:11.310 so you could have money, lots of us don't have money, 0:29:11.410 --> 0:29:13.780 so that's not the only source of power. You could 0:29:13.780 --> 0:29:17.900 also have, um, intellectual capital, so you could know things that, 0:29:18.140 --> 0:29:21.619 that other people need. You could have social capital, your relationships, 0:29:21.689 --> 0:29:22.699 your reputation. 0:29:23.060 --> 0:29:25.670 You could have human capital, which is your time and 0:29:25.670 --> 0:29:30.189 energy and effort. You could have, um, material capital, which 0:29:30.189 --> 0:29:33.750 as a parent, you control the iPad, you control the, 0:29:33.910 --> 0:29:37.939 the access to the, you know, pool or the fun spaces. Um, 0:29:38.030 --> 0:29:41.229 and you can have psychological capital through emotional intelligence, being 0:29:41.229 --> 0:29:43.030 able to change how people feel. 0:29:43.400 --> 0:29:45.020 And so all of those are things that could be 0:29:45.020 --> 0:29:47.290 a source of power. What do you have? Where are 0:29:47.290 --> 0:29:49.329 you strong? Where are you weak? What do other people 0:29:49.329 --> 0:29:52.250 value in you? And just, just knowing that stuff before 0:29:52.250 --> 0:29:54.469 you go into an interaction can be really helpful. 0:29:55.069 --> 0:29:58.829 Number 2 would be, look ahead, 6 months, 12 months, 0:29:58.910 --> 0:30:02.709 18 months, and think about what relationships are going to 0:30:02.709 --> 0:30:05.939 matter to your success and define that however you want. 0:30:05.989 --> 0:30:08.099 It could be at work, it could be personally, it 0:30:08.099 --> 0:30:12.310 could be, um, in some social domain or uh even 0:30:12.310 --> 0:30:14.369 philanthropic activities, whatever. 0:30:14.949 --> 0:30:17.069 Who am I going to need and am I tending 0:30:17.069 --> 0:30:19.939 those relationships the way that I should? And if I'm not, 0:30:20.270 --> 0:30:22.189 then let me, let me tend to them. And I 0:30:22.189 --> 0:30:24.349 advise that people sit down every year and just sort 0:30:24.349 --> 0:30:27.369 of do a little scan of of am I attending 0:30:27.369 --> 0:30:28.229 my relationships. 0:30:28.530 --> 0:30:31.349 Some people hear that and they think it sounds very instrumental. Like, 0:30:31.410 --> 0:30:32.810 I'm just going to do this because I'm going to 0:30:32.810 --> 0:30:35.930 need people, but you're not, I'm not saying do this 0:30:35.930 --> 0:30:38.810 when you need something. I'm saying do it because you 0:30:38.810 --> 0:30:41.050 know people are important to you and ask yourself, are 0:30:41.050 --> 0:30:43.400 you showing up for them, which I think is just 0:30:43.400 --> 0:30:44.729 a really good thing for all of us to do 0:30:44.729 --> 0:30:47.849 as human beings. We tend to run our relationships kind 0:30:47.849 --> 0:30:50.930 of on autopilot and I'm saying be a little bit 0:30:50.930 --> 0:30:51.709 more intentional. 0:30:52.250 --> 0:30:54.890 And then the third thing is to keep an eye 0:30:54.890 --> 0:30:59.250 out for, uh, information on the amount of power and 0:30:59.250 --> 0:31:03.689 persuasive influence that underlie different kinds of tactics, and think 0:31:03.689 --> 0:31:07.010 about if I want to be softer, if I want 0:31:07.010 --> 0:31:09.589 to be persuasive, if I want to give people a choice, 0:31:09.890 --> 0:31:12.709 how can I plan for resistance? How can I expect 0:31:12.709 --> 0:31:15.930 to be uh, told no 3 times, 4 times in 0:31:15.930 --> 0:31:18.650 a row, and be ready to come back with something 0:31:18.650 --> 0:31:21.209 each time I hear that without giving up and jumping 0:31:21.209 --> 0:31:21.780 to power. 0:31:22.050 --> 0:31:24.250 Such great advice, Jen. Thanks so much for spending time 0:31:24.250 --> 0:31:24.910 with us today. 0:31:25.130 --> 0:31:27.160 It's been an absolute pleasure. I'm a big fan of 0:31:27.160 --> 0:31:28.589 both of you. Thanks for having me. 0:31:30.239 --> 0:31:32.550 That brings us to the end of this episode of PsychTalks, 0:31:32.630 --> 0:31:34.750 and it's time for me to thank our incredible guest, 0:31:34.800 --> 0:31:38.390 Professor Jennifer Overbeck. This episode was produced by Carly Godden 0:31:38.680 --> 0:31:41.920 with production support from Mairead Murray and Gemma Papprill. Sound 0:31:41.920 --> 0:31:44.630 engineering was by Jack Palmer. Thanks for listening and we'll 0:31:44.630 --> 0:31:45.540 catch you next time.