Executive Power

What about those times when the conflict isn’t so great but the two people involved just seem to either resent each other or are easily annoyed by the other person? This situation is completely about respect; there are no real issues to deal with. You can make peace very easily and effectively by telling each person how much the other really respects the way he does or did something. You will find, almost every single time, that each person—who now feels respected by the other—begins to act with significant kindness and respect for the other.

When you show others that you don’t take yourself so seriously, it makes them feel closer to you and want to be around you. Nobody likes a show-off or a person who is so consumed with himself and his image that he needs to pretend that he is perfect

Nothing brings out awe like someone admitting he was wrong. If you have made a mistake, publicly acknowledge it and give credit to the person who was right. If an error occurs with a client or customer, regardless of how small, be the first to call and apologize. Let her know the steps you have taken to rectify the situation and assure her that with these steps now in place, it won’t happen again

Setting yourself up as someone who is better than the rest is giving those around you the incentive to hope that you fail. The most intoxicating ingredient in the charisma mix is humility. As we saw earlier, when our ego is not engaged, we easily and directly connect to others.

whenever a person makes his own job—in this case the question—harder, our brains suspend processing and falsely assume that he must really know his stuff.
4. Now you give the best answer you’ve got. By following the previous three steps, you’ve bought yourself some time, and via the law of expectancy you increased the impression that you are in control of the facts. It almost doesn’t matter what you say as even a general nonanswer will be heard as authoritative and positive.

Make the question more difficult to answer. “Let’s not ask what happens if the return rate exceeds my projection by 5 percent, but let’s make your question stronger. What happens if it is as high as 10 percent?” This tactic also engages the listeners’ heuristic programming. In brief, as a way of digesting the vast amounts of information that we are exposed to and making competent decisions, our brain takes short-cuts.

A question is asked, and you need to buy some time. The problem? You’re concerned that you may come off as being unsure or unprepared if you don’t respond right away with some sort of an answer. Use this four-point tactic to gracefully and eloquently deal with the challenge.

1. Smile slightly and nod approvingly to show that you are not thrown or bothered by the question.
2. Say, “That’s a great question! In fact when I first thought about this very point….” This shows that you’ve already considered the question, but it doesn’t make the person feel foolish for asking

What do you do when you know there is a weakness in your argument? Do you wait to see if someone will bring it up? Research says no. As long as it does not completely destroy your point, beating others to the proverbial punch actually gives you more credibility.
Stealing thunder is a tactic whereby you are the first to introduce information that is injurious to your position. It is shown to successfully dilute the impact of negative information.

1981 study by Tversky and Kahmneman:
Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for an outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease are proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:
• If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.
• If program B is adopted, there is a ⅓ probability that 600 people will be saved and ⅔ probability that no people will be saved.
Which program would you choose? When the programs were framed in this way, the researchers found that 72 percent of the respondents chose to save 200 lives rather than risk everyone’s lives. However, they then posed the question to a second group of subjects with a twist and framed the alternatives differently.
• If program C is adopted, 400 people will die.
• If program D is adopted, there is a ⅓ probability that nobody will die, and ⅔ probability the 600 people will die.
In surprisingly stark contrast to programs A and B, 78 percent of the respondents chose D, the riskier alternative, when presented with programs C and D

Most interesting is that negatively framed outcomes shift in favor of your plan, even when it is riskier than another course of action