Page 40 - stephen covey The seven habits of highly effective people
P. 40

THE SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PEOPLE                                                      Brought to you by FlyHeart

             Indirect control problems are solved by changing our methods of influence.    These are the "Public
       Victories" of Habits 4, 5, and 6.    I have personally identified over 30 separate methods of human
       influence -- as separate as empathy is from confrontation, as separate as example is from persuasion.
       Most people have only three or four of these  methods in their repertoire, starting usually with
       reasoning, and, if that doesn't work, moving to flight or fight.    How liberating it is to accept the idea
       that I can learn new methods of human influence instead of constantly trying to use old ineffective
       methods to "shape up" someone else!
             No control problems involve taking the responsibility to change the line on the bottom on our face --
       to smile, to genuinely and peacefully accept these problems and learn to live with them, even though
       we don't like them.    In this way, we do not empower these problems to control us.    We share in the
       spirit embodied in the Alcoholics Anonymous prayer, "Lord, give me the courage to change the things
       which can and ought to be changed, the serenity to accept the things which cannot be changed, and the
       wisdom to know the difference."
             Whether a problem is direct, indirect, or no control, we have in our hands the first step to the
       solution.  Changing our habits, changing our methods of influence and changing the way we see our
       no control problems are all within our Circle of Influence.

       Expanding the Circle of Influence

             It is inspiring to realize that in choosing our response to circumstance, we powerfully affect our
       circumstance.    When we change one part of the chemical formula, we change the nature of the results
             I worked with one organization for several years that was headed by a very dynamic person.    He
       could read trends.    He was creative, talented, capable, and brilliant -- and everyone knew it.    But he
       had a very dictatorial style of management.    He tended to treat people like "gofers," as if they didn't
       have any judgment.    His manner of speaking to those who worked in the organization was, "Go for
       this; go for that; now do this; now do that -- I'll make the decisions.
             The net effect was that he alienated almost the entire executive team surrounding him.  They would
       gather in the corridors and complain to each  other about him.  Their discussion was all very
       sophisticated, very articulate, as if they were trying to help the situation.    But they did it endlessly,
       absolving themselves of responsibility in the name of the president's weaknesses.
             "You can't imagine what's happened this time," someone would say.    "The other day he went into
       my department.    I had everything all laid out.    But he came in and gave totally different signals.
       Everything I'd done for months was shot,    just like that.    I don't know how I'm supposed to keep
       working for him.    How long will it be until he retires?"
             "He's only fifty-nine," someone else would respond.    "Do you think you can survive for six more
       years?"
          "I don't know.  He's the kind of person they probably won't retire anyway."
             But one of the executives was proactive.    He was driven by values, not feelings.    He took initiative
       -- he anticipated, he empathized, he read the situation.    He was not blind to the president's weaknesses;
       but instead of criticizing them, he would compensate for them.    Where the president was weak in his
       style, he'd try to buffer his own people and make such weaknesses irrelevant.    And he'd work with the
       president's strengths -- his vision, talent, creativity.
             This man focused on his Circle of Influence.    He was treated like a gofer, also.    But he would do
       more than what was expected.  He anticipated the president's need.  He read with empathy the
       president's underlying concern, so when he presented information, he also gave his analysis and his
       recommendations based on that analysis.
             As I sat one day with the president in an advisory capacity, he said, "Stephen, I just can't believe
       what this man has done.    He's not only given me the information I requested, but he's provided
   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45