with a receptive audience, dominance is a zero-sum game: the more power and authority I have, the
less you have. When takers come across someone more dominant, they’re at risk of losing their
influence. Conversely, prestige isn’t zero-sum; there’s no limit to the amount of respect and
admiration that we can dole out. This means that prestige usually has more lasting value, and it’s
worth examining how people earn it.
The opposite of a taker’s powerful communication style is called powerless communication.
Powerless communicators tend to speak less assertively, expressing plenty of doubt and relying
heavily on advice from others. They talk in ways that signal vulnerability, revealing their weaknesses
and making use of disclaimers, hedges, and hesitations. In Western societies, Susan Cain writes in
Quiet, people expect us to communicate powerfully. We’re told that great leaders use “power talk”
and “power words” to forcefully convey their messages. By using powerless communication, surely
people wind up at a disadvantage when it comes to influence.
Um, well, not quite.
I think.
In this chapter, my aim is to challenge traditional assumptions about the importance of
assertiveness and projecting confidence in gaining influence. It turns out this style doesn’t always
serve us well, and givers instinctively adopt a powerless communication style that proves
surprisingly effective in building prestige. I want to trace how givers develop prestige in four
domains of influence: presenting, selling, persuading, and negotiating. Because they value the
perspectives and interests of others, givers are more inclined toward asking questions than offering
answers, talking tentatively than boldly, admitting their weaknesses than displaying their strengths,
and seeking advice than imposing their views on others. Is it possible that these forms of powerless
communication can become powerful?
michael s
(Michael S)
#1