|
we
and
us
,” Hill says. “I didn’t use enough first-
person singular pronouns, like
I
and
me
. I found out later that it didn’t seem like I was a leader. He
thought I didn’t drive the team’s success, and wanted someone who could.” The interviewer expected
Hill to speak more assertively, and powerless communication cost him the job.
By speaking with greater speed, volume, assertiveness, and certainty, takers convince us that they
know what they’re talking about. In one study conducted by
psychologists in California
, takers were
judged by group members as more competent, but in reality, they weren’t more competent. Takers, the
study’s authors report, “attain influence because they behave in ways that make them appear
competent—even when they actually lack competence.”
By failing to use powerful speech in his interview, Barton Hill failed to create the impression of
dominance. Yet the same powerless communication that cost him the promotion ended up earning
prestige, making his teams successful. Whereas powerful communication might be effective in a one-
shot job interview, in a team or a service relationship, it loses the respect and admiration of others.
Psychologists in Amsterdam
have shown that although group members perceive takers as highly
effective leaders, takers actually undermine group performance. Speaking dominantly convinces
group members that takers are powerful, but it stifles information sharing, preventing members from
communicating good ideas. “Teams love it when their leader presents a work product as a
collaborative effort. That’s what inspires them to contribute,” Hill reflects. “The paradox comes from
people thinking an inclusive leader isn’t strong enough to lead a team, when in fact that leader is
stronger, because he engenders the support of the team. People bond to givers, like
electromagnetism.” Eventually, Hill left for another company, and three of his former employees
approached him about joining his team. This type of loyalty has paid off in the long run: Hill’s teams
have been wildly successful. He is now a managing director and global head of marketing at Citi
Transaction Services, a division of more than twenty thousand people.
Of course, there’s a time and a place for leaders to use powerful speech. In a study of
pizza
franchises
, colleagues Francesca Gino, Dave Hofmann, and I found that when most employees in a
store are dutiful followers, managers are well served to speak powerfully. But when most employees
are proactive, generating new ideas for cooking and delivering pizzas more efficiently, powerful
speech backfires. When employees were proactive, managers who talked forcefully led their stores to
14 percent lower profits than managers who talked less assertively and more tentatively. By
conveying dominance, the powerful speakers discouraged their proactive employees from
contributing. When people use powerful communication, others perceive them as “preferring and
pursuing individual accomplishments,” Fragale writes, “at the expense of group accomplishments.”
Through talking tentatively, the powerless speakers earned prestige: they showed openness to
proactive ideas that would benefit the group.
To see if this effect would hold up in a more controlled setting, my colleagues and I brought teams
of people together to fold T-shirts. We instructed half of the team leaders to talk forcefully, and asked
the other half to talk more tentatively. Once again, when team members were passive followers, the
powerful speakers did just fine. But when team members were highly proactive, taking initiative to
come up with a faster way to fold T-shirts, the powerless speakers were much more effective.
Proactive teams had 22 percent higher average output under leaders who spoke powerlessly than
powerfully. Team members saw the powerful speakers as threatened by ideas, viewing the powerless
speakers as more receptive to suggestions. Talking tentatively didn’t establish dominance, but it
earned plenty of prestige. Team members worked more productively when the tentative talkers
showed that they were open to advice.
To a taker, this receptivity to advice may sound like a weakness. By listening to other people’s
suggestions, givers might end up being unduly influenced by their colleagues. But what if seeking
advice is actually a strategy for influencing other people? When givers sit down at the bargaining
table, they benefit from advice in unexpected ways.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
