Conversation 9: Predicting the Efficiency of Implementing Decisions

I now understand authority, power, influence, and their combinations. I have a well-defined (PAEI) decision and a square of responsibility. Now, will you tell me how to predict efficient implementation?

Let’s superimpose authority, power, and influence, as depicted in our diagram, on the square of responsibility and see what happens. We’ll take three situations.

In the first case, managers have authority, power, and influence, or any combination of them; they have authorance, more or less equal to responsibility, with which to carry out that responsibility. But the capi component, the core of the diagram, where the three overlap, does not cover the responsibility. It is too small. What does this mean?

DIAGRAMA

These managers have enough (more or less) authority, power, and/or influence to carry out their responsibility, but don’t have control (capi) over all of their responsibilities.

They are the type of managers who juggle. Over some areas of their responsibility, they have only authority. They will have to decide and then hope their decision is carried out. In other areas, where they have no authority but they do have power, they say to those whose help they need, “Help me out and I’ll help you too. Otherwise. . . ” In the third area of their responsibility, they have only influence. They have to convince others to help.

They have control only over a very small part of their responsibility: where they have capi. In that area, they make decisions and things get done without much doubt, because they have authority and power and influence.

But the circles do not fully cover the square. In some areas of responsibility, these managers have no authority, no power, and no influence.

That’s normal because of change, remember? The square and the circles move. They are rarely equal anyway. When responsibility is larger than authority, the person will have to try to get more influence. That should be easier than to get more authority.

Because of change, the composition of authorance has to be such that influence is bigger than the square, influence is bigger than the responsibility. That means a person should have influence over what he is responsible for.

Authority should be more or less equal to responsibility. Since influence is bigger than responsibility, whatever is not covered by authority is covered by influence.

There should be some area in which there is authorized power. Power is inside the authority circle. That is power over what is really critical. This is reserved for transgressions of values, quality, or policy.

By the way, this symbol is the logo of the Adizes Institute Publications.

DIAGRAMA

What about when authority is bigger than responsibility? That can happen too.

In areas where authority is bigger than responsibility, leaders should just take the additional responsibility on themselves and see that they are not crashing into someone else. Later on, we’ll discuss how to do this.

For now, let’s proceed to the second case, in which the authority, power, and influence circles do not overlap, although they cover, more or less, the square of responsibility. There is no capi. How does that look graphically?

DIAGRAMA

Can managers implement their decisions in this case? Can they be responsible?

It’s going to be more difficult this time. Authority without power isn’t worth much. What can one do with authority and no power? How about power without authority? Power without authority is very dangerous. It works in the short term, but backfires sooner or later because it is not legitimized.

How about just influence?

Influence without authority and power works, but it takes a long time to build influence. Each of the components—authority, power, and influence—have different rates of effectiveness, i.e., how they impact those to whom they are directed.

DIAGRAMA

Assume you measure effectiveness on a vertical line. What impact will the use of any of these energies have on the direction of the line?

Place the rate of utilization on the horizontal line. Start with power. If you have never pun- ished, nor rewarded, then the utilization rate is zero.

Then why is effectiveness above zero?

It is called assumed power. People assume how much damage you can do to them by punishing or withholding reward before you do anything.

What happens when you use power for the first time? Effectiveness will go up, because the first punishment is the most painful. It is not assumed anymore. It is real. It will be somewhat equal to the assumed effectiveness, but if you continue using power more frequently, what happens to effectiveness? Whoever is using power will have to use more and more to get the same effectiveness. In absolute terms, power loses effectiveness the more it is used.

You are right. The first time you punish a child it is very traumatic. If you abuse a child often, the abuse increasingly has less and less effect.

Yes. I worked in a prison. Punishments did not work well. The inmates had been hurt so badly all their lives that another punishment was just another event. Love, however, has enormous effect. That is why some prisons give prisoners a dog to raise. Now take that dog away, take that love away, and you will see grown man cry.

If you use too much power it backfires. The people against whom you are using power, will use power back at you. It has negative effectiveness.

How about influence?

Start with zero utilization. Effectiveness is still positive. Why?

I would guess it is assumed influence, assumed effectiveness.

Yes. Realize that when you start using influence, at first it might go down in effectiveness. Why? Because the listener is testing you, to see if she can trust your influence. If you prove to be constructive and trustworthy, effectiveness goes up, but not endlessly. At a certain level of utilization, you might be out of your depth, as they say. For instance, you might know eco- nomics, but what do you know about psychology and marriage counseling?

What about authority?

That is the weakest of managerial energies. People erroneously believe it is the most pow- erful, and thus seek more and more authority, but it is weak if it is not backed up by power and/or influence. Just imagine you tell a subordinate, do this because I am your boss. If you cannot back it with influence or power, how many times can you use this source of energy?

Not many times, I agree.

So what do managers do when they have responsibility with authorance but no capi?

They can be effective, but I bet they won’t sleep very well. They’ll spend sleepless nights thinking of ways to enforce their decisions. They will not be efficient in how they use their energy.

Now let’s take the third case: The leader has authorance over responsibility (more or less) and this authorance is entirely composed of capi. How will that diagram look?

The three circles will overlap completely so that you have total capi, and it will almost cover the square.

DIAGRAMA

AΣ capi =˜ Responsibility

For almost every part of their responsibility, the leaders have authority, power, and influence reinforcing each other.

Can they implement their decisions now?

You bet! They have the right to decide and can back that right with influence and power, both of which are legitimized and in their possession. Managers in this situation decide, and it happens. They are in control of their responsibility.

Right on. Let’s look again at these three cases.

DIAGRAMA

Can the managers in each of these three cases carry out their responsibilities?

Yes, as long as they have authority and/or power and/or influence. As long as they have more or less sufficient authorance, they should be able to get their managerial job done.

Which means they are equally effective in each case, but are they equally efficient? Efficiency measures how much energy they have to use to get their responsibility carried out. Who sleeps best at night?

The managers in the third case!

Right. All they have to do is decide and it will get done. They have full capi, full authority, power, and influence over their responsibilities.

Who is the least efficient? Who sleeps the least at night?

The managers with zero capi.

You have just discovered a very important concept: managerial effectiveness and efficiency. Effectiveness is measured by the capability to get the job done, to carry out ones responsibility.

Efficiency is measured by the energy leaders have to expend in order to implement their decisions, to carry their responsibility. Managerial effectiveness is a function of authorance in relation to responsibilities. Managers are effective when they have sufficient authority and/or power and/or influence for their responsibility. You can be effective as a manager as long as you have sufficient authorance to carry out your responsibilities.

FORMULA

Managerial efficiency is a function of the amount of capi held by the managers, out of the total authorance they have. The more capi, the less energy they have to spend to get things done.

FORMULA

I believe I understand: The only thing managers need in order to implement decisions effectively is to have sufficient authorance. It means they should have all the authority, power, and influence they need to carry out their decisions. In order to be efficient, with their use of energy in carrying out their responsibility, they need capi.

So which of the three above situations would you prefer?

Without doubt situation number 3. I have all the capi I need to get my job done. Easy.

That is the dream of every leader, manager, executive, and macho man. But let me tell you, what starts as a dream ends as a nightmare.

What?

How often do you find people with full capi, full control, over their responsibilities? Rarely, if ever. There is a reason. The situation may exist in a dictatorship, but only for a short while.

Why?

Imagine having complete authority, power, and influence. Which source of total managerial energy (authorance) would you be inclined to use most? Which is the most efficient? You use it and it has impact, almost instantaneously.

Power! I can see that with children. When I don’t have the time to persuade them to do something, I threaten punishment.

That’s why power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power gives instant results, but over time higher and higher doses are necessary to achieve the same impact. It’s like a drug.

Power corrupts because it is effective and easy to use. When you have all the capi for your responsibility, you will tend to use the power you need to carry out your responsibilities, because it is so effective and it is available. There is a good chance you will be tempted to use it exclusively. True, it is backed by authority and influence, since it is part and parcel of capi. However, as you use power, not only will the effectiveness of power start to wane, but influ- ence is going to decline too. It will undermine your influence and diminish your authority. As people get punished, they start questioning influence and eventually authority. The result is that capi starts to diminish and there might come a day of a revolution, an uprising. Dictators get assassinated.

Full capi is very rare, and even then, if it is in use, it is not a stable situation. Dictators spend years building capi, only to lose it over time. By assassination or revolution.

We have to learn how to increase the efficiency of what we do under normal circumstances. Stop dreaming of becoming a dictator with full capi over everything. Too many leaders in the dead of night mumble to themselves, “Oh, if only I had all the power I need. If only we could destroy our opposition. Then I wouldn’t have any problems. Things would happen then!”

I have news for such leaders. In the long term, dictatorial powers will not provide control. They have to stop dreaming of total power and dictatorial management. Instead, they must learn how to work under normal circumstances, in which they don’t have all the power and authority and influence they need.

But if no single individual has capi over her responsibility, does it mean that all decisions will be inefficiently implemented?

As Voltaire reportedly said, the best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination.

Wait, I think I know the answer—this is the same conclusion we reached about (PAEI). We need full capi, but since no one person has it alone, for full capi, we again need a team.

Right! Back to teamwork, but this time, we need the team not to make a decision, but to implement one.

If managers do not have capi for the totality of their responsibilities, they need to seek the cooperation of others. They must take into account the interests of the people whose coop- eration they’re seeking, those who have power and/or influence.

That makes sense. But people can’t manage through a team all the time. Do managers call a meeting every time they want to change anything? That would paralyze a company.

Let’s see if we can figure out a solution. Which of the three cases is most frequently encountered?

The first, I think, in which a manager has capi over some responsibilities; authority, power, or influence over other responsibilities; and a combination or none of them over the remainder.

Assume that this first case is a dartboard. (My associates call it an Adizegram.) Let’s play a dart game on our circles and square and see what happens.

A problem comes to you, usually through email, telephone, or the door. How are you going to solve it? Take a dart and throw it at the board. Let’s assume that the dart lands far away from the square, as I’ve drawn it here. What should you do?

DIAGRAMA

Obviously, this problem is not my responsibility.

How would you like going to a restaurant, sitting at a table, and waiting for a long time to be served. No one approaches you. Finally you get the attention of a waiter and ask him for service. He says, “Sorry, you are not at my table,” and walks away. Would you come back to this restaurant?

No way.

You want this waiter to say: “Let me get your waiter right away,” and not to stop until he finds the right waiter and sees to it that you are served. Same here. When an issue comes to you for whatever reason, even if it is out of your responsibility, it is still your responsibility—not to do it, but to find who should do it.

It is not the customer’s responsibility to wander the corridors of your company trying to find out who should take care of him.

If the problem, for whatever reason, lands in your lap, it is your problem, not to solve, but to see to it that it gets solved. Got it?

Got it. It is a matter of organizational culture.

You bet, and you as the leader should work on creating this culture, nurturing it. It does not happen by itself. What do you think is the best way to create it?

Every employee should think like the leader. Like in a military, where every soldier should feel as if the security of the whole country is his responsibility.

To give a personal example?

Absolutely. As a matter of fact, that is your job as a leader in the company. If you are the leader, you have no box. You are responsible for everything that happens in the company, although you do not do anything yourself. You see to it that the organization does it.

You should feel responsible for everything, although you don’t have to handle it all personally. You should care for everything as if it is all your responsibility.

US President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read “the buck stops here,” meaning there is no one to whom you can pass the responsibility to absolve yourself of it. You are it. You can delegate, but delegation does not mean you are no longer responsible.

But that’s true also for sociopolitical activists who are socially conscious and fight for what they believe in. They will behave the same way even though they’re not the president.

Good point. That’s why in a democracy, every citizen is not only a possible candidate for the presidency, but every citizen should think like a president. Every citizen should be involved in caring for the totality.

The same holds true for a well-managed organization. Every employee should think like the leader. Like in a military, where every soldier should feel as if the security of the whole coun- try is his responsibility.

The Problem

Now let’s throw the next dart. This time, the dart hits smack in the center of your square, in capi. Is that problem your responsibility?

Yes. It is in my square of responsibility.

You have authority, power, and influence? You have capi?

Yes.

What should you do about this problem? It’s your responsibility. You have all the necessary authority, power, and influence. What should you do?

Decide! Make a decision and carry it through.

Right. It’s your problem! Don’t call a meeting, there’s no need. If you do call one, it would be to inform others of your decision. If they don’t like it, you’ll accept resignations. We don’t need participative management here. It’s your responsibility and you’re in control. Do it!

The fact that you have influence means that you know what the right decision is and are convinced of it.

Now, throw the next dart.

DIAGRAMA

This time, as you can see, it falls inside the square and in the authority circle, which means it’s your responsibility, but you have only authority over the matter. You have no power and no influence. Are you responsible?

Yes.

But you only have authority. What should you do without power or influence?

Now is the time to call a meeting.

Right, but why?

Because authority without power and influence won’t take me far.

In fact, if you only have authority, you are in a “managerial overdraft.”

What’s that?

Let me show you—it’s too important to miss.

DIAGRAMA

Let’s look at this managerial task. A mother is trying to convince her child to eat spinach. First, she says, “Eat, it’s good for you. Popeye eats spinach. Look how strong he is. If you eat spinach, you’ll be strong like Popeye.” Where is she on the authorance diagram? What part of authorance is she using?

Influence.

Right. But the kid says, “No! I hate spinach.” So the mother tries again, saying, “When Daddy comes home, I’m going to tell him you were a good boy. If you eat your spinach, he’ll take you to the zoo.” She has moved out of influence. What is she now using?

Influencing power.

Yes, by referring to the potential rewards or dangers, she is using influencing power. But still the kid refuses to eat. If the mother gets very upset and punishes the child, what is she using?

Authorized power.

But if the husband comes home and says, “What have you done? What are you punishing the kid for? If he doesn’t want to eat spinach, he doesn’t have to.”

Certain facts should never be spoken. After you say them aloud, you’re left with nothing.

Then she was using unauthorized power.

This is likely to happen in modern families in which parents share authority. No one can claim exclusive authority.

The kids still refuses to eat spinach, and he’s crying. So the mother starts crying, too: “You never listen to me. You never do what your mother tells you to do. What’s wrong with you? Listen to me, I’m your mother!”

Now, she’s using authority.

Right. That’s the point! But doesn’t the child already know that she’s his mother? The day you have to remind people of your authority, when it should be obvious, is the day you are in managerial overdraft.

The day you tell your employees, “Do it because I’m the boss,” what are you reminding them of? Don’t they know you’re the boss? If you have to remind them of such an obvious fact, you’re in trouble.

When somebody says, “But I’m your husband,” or “I’m your wife,” he or she is saying some- thing equally obvious. It means that all sources of authorance, of managerial energy, have been exhausted. The person is down to the last gasp of breath. This is very dangerous because certain facts should never be spoken. After you say them aloud, you’re left with nothing.

Authority in itself is very weak unless it’s backed with power and influence. You probably can’t use just authority alone more than once or twice. If you plead repeatedly with your children, “But I’m your father,” they eventually might say, “So what?” In that case there is really nothing else you can do.

What should you do then, if you have only authority?

Call a meeting. Why?

To coalesce power and influence.

Whom should you have at the meeting?

Those people with the power to sabotage my solution, the people whose cooperation I need, and the people who wield influence, who have the knowledge. They can convince other people because of their knowledge.

I don’t call this situation a problem; I call it a pre-problem, because you cannot solve the problem until you solve the pre-problem.

What is the pre-problem?

The Pre-Problem

When you call a meeting, you can’t be certain everyone will come. You might call a meeting, and people won’t come because they don’t work for you. Maybe they do work for you, but the trade union doesn’t want them to come for fear they’ll be co-opted. Or maybe they don’t trust you, or don’t respect you, or think it is not their problem. Even if they do come, you can’t be certain they’ll cooperate.

So what do I do?

You have to solve the pre-problem first. The pre-problem is to persuade them to cooperate. You have to create a cooperative environment, before you can solve the problem for which you need their cooperation.

How do I do that?

A joke will illustrate the point: A hen and a pig were very good friends. One day the hen said, “We get along so well, why don’t we start a business together?”

The pig answered, “Good idea. What do you have in mind?”

The hen said, “Well, I’ve studied the current market conditions and looked for opportunities in which we would have synergistic capabilities. I have what you do not have and you have what I do not have. Together we have a value proposition for the market. We should start a restaurant serving an American breakfast of ham and eggs.”

The pig looked at the hen, took a big deep breath and said, “It’s a great idea, but what is a mere contribution for you is a total sacrifice for me.”

Many decisions are for the good of the organization, but they’re not in the interest of the people needed to implement the decisions.

Each component—authority, power, and influence—reflects the different self-interests of the different people involved. Authority usually reflects the sel—interests of management. They have the authority that flows from the stockholders to the board of directors to management. Management possesses the legal authority.

Who has the power?

The subordinates, labor.

Aha! If they’re unionized, it’s authorized power.

The employees have power, and their horizon is different from that of the management. Management wants to make the company grow, to get the biggest return on investment. They want the organization to be strong in the long term and management is rewarded through stock options and bonuses. What is labor interested in? In the short term: in take- home income, fringe benefits, working conditions, etc. That doesn’t seem very loyal. It’s normal though, and to be expected. Employees don’t know if they will stay with the or- ganization long enough to benefit from long-range plans. They don’t participate in making them. Sometimes they don’t even know what those plans are. Frequently, those long-term plans exclude them. They might be fired on short notice. They have no control, no stock options. Management, on the other hand, could benefit in the long term with profit sharing and golden parachutes.

Each group is naturally interested in that from which it can benefit. What is so surprising about that? The United States was built on the notion of self-interest and the pursuit of happiness.

Now I understand why employees are more committed and supportive of change when the company is committed to them for the long term, and through profit sharing or stock options, they benefit from their cooperation.

Yes, but be careful. Some countries, like Sweden or Germany, have long-term employment and participatory management required by law, but it produces different results. It depends on how you conduct such management. The Japanese have participatory management and lifetime employment as a manifestation of their (I) culture. The moment you do it by law, as in Sweden or Germany, it becomes not (I) but…

(A).

Right. By law you can’t fire people, and by law you must have participatory management. By law employee representatives sit on the board of directors.

Will that have an impact on the (E) role?

It could but not necessarily so. In Germany, I suggest, the codetermination model is partial- ly responsible for their economic success. Workers are dedicated and the relationships are less antagonistic. In the former Yugoslavia, on the other hand, the government also forced participatory management by law and the economy virtually collapsed. The (E), and then the (P), fell apart.

When (P) goes down and the economic conditions worsen, (I) can go down too. They had a political mess in addition to an economic one and Yugoslavia fell apart. It dissolved. It depends on how much (A) is part of the culture or how much it is a forced and alien component.

I think we have digressed. We were discussing how people with authority and power have different interests. Who has influence in an organization?

Influence is usually represented by the technocrats, staff people, and professionals. What are they interested in? The biggest R&D budget, the most professional exposure, and the most liberal research capabilities.

I’ve noticed that with computer professionals, they switch companies at the drop of a hat if they’re offered better computers elsewhere. The same is true of academics. Their loyalty is to their field of knowledge, not to the organization that employs them.

Exactly. Each component of capi reflects a different self-interest. If you want to solve a pre-problem, what do you have to do? Think about the common interest and how to create a win-win climate. Think about why the people should come and solve the problem together.

If people share a problem they should share a solution too.

The mistake you might make is to call a meeting and say, “Ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem and my solution is…” They’re going to think, “If it is your solution then it is your problem. What do you want from us?” If people share a problem they should share a solution too.

What you should do is lay the groundwork for the discussion. Approach each member of the group whose cooperation you need individually, and convince them that they have a problem that is your problem too. Then call a meeting and say, “We have a problem. We have common interests to solve this problem. We’re in this boat together! Agree?” Let each person express himself until a climate of common interest to solve the problem emerges. Then start looking for a common solution. You might say, “I have a suggestion for a solution, but I’d like to hear what you think so we can arrive at our solution.” It is not a compromise. It is a consensus.

A person should not be part of the solution if he isn’t part of the problem; and if he is part of the problem, he better be part of the solution.

Several years ago, when Miguel de la Madrid was running for president of Mexico, he had a slogan, “La solucion somos todos,” which means “The solution is all of us.” According to your theory, if the solution is in the hands of all the Mexican people, then the problem is of all the Mexican people too.

There is a seven-day course at the Adizes Institute—E2 Training—which teaches detailed protocols for leading such a discussion to arrive at common solution that all support.

Which includes Mr. de la Madrid and his government, as they were part of the problem too. (I bet he did not see it that way though.) The people alone are not the problem and the government alone is not the solution. Both have to accept responsibility for being the problem and for finding the solution.

Managers sometimes ask their employees, “Are you part of the solution or part of the problem?” This is an artificial distinction. A person should not be part of the solution if he isn’t part of the problem; and if he is part of the problem, he better be part of the solution.

Give me a business example.

Take a company with low productivity. Is that something that is desirable to fix?

Sure.

Okay, is it within management’s square of responsibility to increase productivity?

Sure!

Now let me ask you: Is it a problem or a pre-problem?

Productivity is not going to increase until management and labor learn to work together.

It’s a problem for management if management has all the authority, power, and influence needed to increase productivity. But management does not have all the necessary managerial energy to solve the problem. There are unions and non-union workers that wield power and influence. All that management has is authority and some authorized power, but not enough to solve the problem. It’s a pre-problem.

Right, and if it’s a pre-problem, authority needs to coalesce with power and influence. That means productivity is not going to increase until management and labor learn to work together.

Productivity is not a technological problem. It is a political-philosophical problem reflecting political values. The United States possesses excellent technology, thus a lack of technology is not what is causing low productivity. American workers, as individuals, are no less dedicated than the Japanese. The evidence is seen in how well they work under Japanese management. Productivity is a political problem between two power centers: management and labor. Do you know one of the reasons Japan and Germany shine economically? They buy technology from the United States, then their management and labor cooperate and use it to outshine American performance. American manufacturing is steeped in the concept of adversarial relations between firms and within the firm. Pluralism is breaking down businesses, even families. We are carrying individualism too far. We prefer to fight one another rather than unite against foreign competition. It makes sense to have competition in the marketplace, but we have brought it into the company too.

Are you saying you like capitalism in the marketplace and socialism in the company?

Capitalism in the marketplace and socialism in the company.

America negates the rights of labor in decision making, just as the Communists negated the rights of private ownership in the creation of value. This is a major mistake. Russia departed from Communist ideology and legitimized private ownership, a revolution in Russian thinking. We need a similar revolution in ours. We need to legitimize the right of labor to manage and accept responsibility with (not against) management.

Low productivity is a pre-problem, not a problem. We are in denial by saying management should solve it. Management can’t solve it alone! You have to call a meeting when you have a pre-problem. You have to ask yourself how you can present it as a shared problem with labor and create a climate in which we can arrive at a joint solution.

Low productivity is a pre-problem, not a problem.

What if you can get rid of some people and then seize power? Wouldn’t that convert a pre-problem into a problem?

The problem might not warrant such a sacrifice. Firing and replacing people is an expensive maneuver. It costs you about a year’s salary for every person that is replaced in the organization. It takes about six months to train a new employee and the person who was fired was probably not productive for the last six months during which they worked. Moreover, replacing people does not always work. You might choose the wrong person. It is expensive and very destructive to fire people. Better to develop teamwork.

The Pre-Pre-Problem

What happens when the dart falls into the influence circle? It’s my responsibility, but I have neither authority nor power, only influence.

DIAGRAMA

This happens in many organizations. The people above you have the authority, the people below you have the power, and you are in the middle. You have only influence to carry out your responsibility.

Thank God I at least have influence, but it sounds like good cause for tension and high blood pressure.

Some people simply relax and say, “The hell with it. It’s not my responsibility. If I don’t have the authority or power, I can’t be responsible.” So they shrink the area for which they feel responsible. That may be the strategy if you do not have influence, and in many organizations, there are things for which nobody takes responsibility. Consequently, the organization is ineffective and the clients suffer. But if you have influence, you cannot and should not shirk responsibility. You should use it.

Assuming I want to do the job, what do I have to do?

You have to use your influence. I call this situation a pre-pre-problem. In this situation you have to convince the person with authority to call a meeting of those with power. The total group can then coalesce to have the capi needed to solve the problem for which you are responsible.

This seems very difficult.

Not once you learn the necessary skills. You have to communicate to your bosses in their own language. The way you communicate with a (P) is different from the way you communi- cate with an (A), an (E), or an (I). Each of them speaks a different language.

I got an insight about this by watching my children. They were in the kitchen talking. Maybe five and six years old. I was eavesdropping on their conversation. One said to his brother, “They said no,” meaning that we the parents refused some demand he made. The brother asked: “Who said no, Mama or Papa?”

That makes a difference. Different styles give different meanings to the same words. For instance, big (A)s, whether Bureaucrats or Administrators, usually do not like to talk about opportunities. For them, an opportunity is a problem. They always think about the repercussions of suggested ideas.

Arsonists or Entrepreneurs usually hate to talk about problems. “I pay you to solve problems,” they say. They prefer to talk about opportunities, and an opportunity for an (E) is a problem for an (A). That’s why they usually don’t understand each other well.

The words opportunity and problem truly mean the same thing.

As we already said, In Chinese, both words have the same character: wēijī, 危机. If you solve the problem, as a result you become stronger and better. You learned, so it was really an opportunity. On the other hand, if you miss an opportunity by doing nothing while your com- petitor exploits it, that could be a problem for you.

That’s why I translate the Chinese word into English as oppor-threat. It describes a situation that could be an opportunity or a threat. It is whatever you make of it. You decide whether it is an opportunity or a problem. Oppor-threat is a neutral word while problem and opportunity are charged with emotion.

Good. I am in charge. What it is depends on what I think.

Here’s another example about differences in style. When (E)s disagree with ideas, they’re usually very vocal about it. They continuously talk and think out loud. Because of this, they dislike being alone. They’re so talkative and creative you can hardly finish telling them a joke. If you start one, it will remind them of a different one.

They’ll even interrupt your punch line. They’re very expressive. If they disagree, they make themselves heard. For them, silence means agreement. The Jewish people, who are known for their strong (E) traits, have a Hebrew expression: Shtika ke hodaya, “Silence is agreement.”

With (A)s, it’s the opposite. They are quiet when they disagree. Look at the Scandinavians or British. When they disagree, they just freeze and look at you!

I can see now how that can cause tremendous miscommunication. An (E) trying to convince an (A) about some new idea. The (E) talks, talks, talks, and the (A) doesn’t say a word. When the (E) leaves, she’ll think, “Fantastic! He’s sold.” Meanwhile the (A) is thinking, “She’s crazy. She’s going to destroy the company. The idea will never work.”

Sometime later, the (E) will ask the (A), “What happened with the idea we agreed about?” The (A) is surprised: “Agreed about? I thought the idea would have been a disaster.” “

But you didn’t say a word,” says the (E), who now has one more reason not to trust the (A).

Let me give you a third example of how different (PAEI) styles may speak the same language, but their words have different meanings.

When you suggest to an (A) that he approve a decision about some change that has not been tried before, he is inclined to say no because he sees many problems with implementation. When you try again and explain more, he still says no. You keep explaining, and finally, when he is sure he fully understands it—and that happens only when he realizes that there is no risk involved—he will say yes.

So?

This means that for (A)s, “no” does not mean no, it means maybe. You have to continue interpreting the “no” as “maybe” until they realize there is no risk, at least for them. For (A)s, “yes” means yes. For them, to say yes is like giving birth. They really suffer to say yes, but once they do, you can depend on it.

What about (E)s?

For Creative Contributors or Arsonists, it is just the opposite: yes means maybe. If you ask an (E) whether he can do something, and it looks interesting, he may say, “Why not?” But this attitude does not last. He may change his mind, especially if it is not his idea. When you are ready to act he might say, “No! I disagree.”

For (E)s, “yes” means maybe and “no” is definite. If he says no and you assume the matter is still open for discussion, you’ll be in trouble when you bring it up again.

(A)s have difficulty saying yes; (E)s have difficulty saying no.

A “no” from an (A) means “maybe, tell me more,” and a “yes” is definite and finite. For an (E) it is the opposite. A “yes” means “why not” and a “no” is definite and final.

That’s why (A)s and (E)s misunderstand each other. (A)s hear “yes” from (E)s and move ahead. Then the (E)s change their mind, driving the (A)s crazy: “You said yes.” The (E)s an- swer, “Well, I was just thinking out loud.”

I saw this happen when I was working with a CEO in Australia. He was one of the biggest (E)s I’ve ever worked with. When talking to his vice president of manufacturing, he asked, “Why don’t we have a manufacturing facility in Brisbane?”

His vice president asked, “Well, should we have one?” The CEO said, “Yeah, why don’t we?”

So the vice president of manufacturing, who had a (PAei) style as we would expect, started planning to build the facility. Two months later, the CEO was very upset: “Why in hell are we building a factory in Brisbane?” “

You said we needed it,” the vice president said.

“I was just asking you why we don’t have one. I didn’t tell you to start building one!”

Yes, people often don’t know whether (E)ntrepreneurs are thinking out loud or deciding. Sometimes when subordinates believe the (E)s are deciding, they discover it wasn’t a deci- sion and get blamed for acting on thoughts. The next time the (E) says something with the same tone of voice, the employees remember the last episode and don’t act. The (E) then becomes upset because his staff didn’t do what was expected of them. The employees feel there is no way they can win. No matter what they do, they’re going to be humiliated for something. (E)ntrepreneurs always act disappointed and disillusioned.

It’s the same in reverse. It drives (E)s mad to hear “no” from (A)s: “How can you say no? I haven’t finished speaking and you’re already saying no.” But the (A) didn’t mean “no,” he meant “maybe, tell me more.”

Now, for whom is “yes” really yes and “no” really no? There is no confusion.

The (P)s.

They don’t understand what’s going on when people question their yes or no. To them it’s very simple and obvious. They are the black-and-white people. No gray area for them. They hate maybes: “Why can’t people just communicate?” they ask.

Finally, for whom do “yes” and “no” mean maybe?

The (I)s. It’s not surprising that (I)s and (P)s dislike each other.

A chart of these tendencies would look like this.

TABLA

If you want to solve a problem when you have only influence, you have to know the different meanings people attach to the same words. If you don’t, you’ll miscommunicate. The rule is don’t treat them as if they were you.

The rule is don’t treat them as if they were you.

The rule is don’t treat them as if they were you. Usually we speak to others as if we were speaking to ourselves, so an (E) for instance will speak to others as if they are (E)s too and be upset when they don’t understand her. The trick is to communicate with language they understand.

This has been a long conversation. Would you please summarize for me?

In order to implement a decision, the decision must be well defined. Why, what, how, by when, and who must be established. Then you must have the authority, power, and influence to carry it through.

Gain the knowledge and skills to effectively navigate and lead change in your organization, family, government, and personal endeavors. Get certified here.

Depending on whether you have capi; just authority, influence, or power; or a combination of the components of authorance, you have to develop a strategy for implementation. Are you starting with a problem, pre-problem, or pre-pre-problem? If it is a pre-pre-problem you have to use influence by persuading in the style the listener understands. If you have only authority it is a pre-problem. You have to know how to create a win-win climate by searching for the common interest. Then you will arrive at a conclusion that all can support. If you have capi, it’s your problem and you have to learn how to use capi, not abuse it; if you use only the power component of capi, it will eventually backfire.

If you have capi, you can be a technician. Supposedly you have the capability to implement the decision. You have the authority to decide, the knowledge to influence, and the power to enforce. You do not have to convince anyone, just order and inspect. If you have only authority, you have to be a politician. You have to create a win-win climate in which everyone is in this together. If you have only influence, you have to be like a streetwise psychologist, sensitive to people and their stylistic differences. You have to know how to communicate with people in a language they understand.

It means that a good manager, leader, or parent should be a technician, politician, and a psychologist, right?

Yes. You need all three. Too many people say, “I love to manage. It’s people I can’t stand,” or “I hate politics.” All they want to do is make good decisions, but they do not want to worry about “selling” their decisions. They don’t wish to deal with people’s unique interests and communication styles. They feel ill at ease when they have to solicit other people’s coopera- tion. I have news for them—bad news. There are only a few cases in which a manager has capi and can afford the luxury of being a technician. Most of the time, a person does not have full capi over all of his responsibility, and thus, needs to coalesce it.

Efficiency of implementation depends on how much capi can be coalesced for the task. How much cooperation can be secured for accomplishing the responsibility, from people necessary for the implementation. For that, a person must be a technician, politician, and psychologist.

Let’s add what we’ve discussed to our diagram before we move on.

DIAGRAMA