What you can learn about influencing people from a classic relationship mistake
Years ago I came across a subtle but powerful piece of relationship advice that unlocked all sorts of dicey situations both at home and at work. The tip is based on understanding the psychology of someone who is emotionally distraught, and while it seems most applicable to personal relationships, it works just as well with upset coworkers, clients… even an emotional crowd, as Bill Clinton demonstrated in the 1992 Presidential Debate.
But before we get to politics, let’s start with the classic relationship scenario. Imagine your significant other comes home upset at being mistreated by a friend. As the story unfolds, you can see your partner’s emotions escalating into anger and frustration at what happened. Your goal is to calm the person down and provide whatever help you can to work through the problem. Most people try to counter the negative emotion with positive emotion. For example, you might try to explain why the problem is not so bad, or you might offer productive solutions. Unfortunately, this tends to escalate the emotion, not resolve it. The one who is upset ends up defending why he or she is so upset, and being told to “calm down” certainly makes matters worse.
The problem is that emotional people are not looking for a solution–at least, not immediately. Venting is natural, but people often make the mistake of thinking that venting is a process that simply has to happen on its own timeline, and the best you can do is to let the person “get it out of the system.” This is not true. You can do more than simply let time do the work.
So here’s the tip: Instead of being positive, or even being neutral, be negative. In fact, match the energy level of the emotional person. Show that you genuinely understand what the person is going through. This is not something that can be done with a patronizing, general comment; you have to be prepared to invest a bit of time in demonstrating that you “get it.” For example, point to a time in the past where you dealt with a similar situation, and discuss how it made you feel. Once you match the person’s energy level, you create a connection based on empathy. Only when you achieve this connection can you guide the person away from the negative state toward a more positive, productive conversation focused on how to “fix” the problem.
The technique is just as applicable in work as at home. As both a lawyer and a business consultant, I have worked with teams that were pushed to the breaking point, working more than ninety hours per week in some (thankfully rare) occasions. Two situations stand out. In one, the team manager called a meeting where he provided a list of suggestions on how the team could work more efficiently to reduce the long hours. The second held a listening session where he kicked off by telling his own personal story of his struggles on an early case in his career, and encouraged others to share what they were feeling on this case. Only at the end of the session did he pivot to discussing ways the team could work more efficiently. Which approach do you think left the team more satisfied and ready to try the proposed solutions? The first manager left the team feeling like they were being “talked at,” while the second manager established credibility that allowed him to land his suggestions with the team.
Take the idea one step further, and you will see that it works just as well on large audiences. In public speaking terms, this technique is about establishing “ethos,” or moral credibility, which is a fundamental building block for any orator. Former President Bill Clinton’s answer to a question about the ailing economy in the 1992 presidential debate is a perfect example. Rather than jump right to a solution, he invests considerable time in showing that he understands what the speaker (and at the time, millions of Americans) experienced. After matching the negative energy (frustration), he gains the credibility necessary to pivot to his proposed policy change:
Whether you are trying to calm down an audience of one or one million, the principles are roughly the same. Identify the emotional state, match it, and then steer back to safety. In other words, when it comes to an emotional audience, before you can beat them, you have to join them.