What's Important Enough to Influence Others?

Consider the quote:

"It was when I first became a company president... that’s when I realized that life was never going to be the way it had been before, that people were watching everything I did. And it wasn’t just going to be about how I dressed. It was about my behavior, the example I set, the tone I set, the way I carried myself, how confident I was — all those kinds of things. It really was now about me and the context of setting the tone for the organization." [1]

Leadership is a position of influence. Influence comes regardless of your position. And influence changes people, either in a positive or a negative way. We are not guaranteed to influence people positively. For example:

E.G.1. You tell someone how to improve their writing. What if you're wrong? Let's say they changed their document, email, or proposal in response. Depending on the context, they could receive negative comments, loose their position, or loose necessary company funding. Yes, they could turn down your advice, but either way the writing advice was unhelpful. Negative advice rejected avoids consequence, but classifies the advisor as "not worth listening to." Negative advice accepted grants consequence to both the advisor and receiver, and the advisor still looses credibility.

"Be a good influence..." What does that actually mean?

A technical answer to this question is deserved, but challenging. Some assumptions from observation include:

Assumption 1: Quality of influence exists along a continuum
- The categories of "good" and "bad" influence could be thought of as half-spaces along a line (all good is positive, all bad is negative), or the extremes of a range (+1 is "fully good" and -1 is "fully bad").
Assumption 2: Quality of influence may relative to a local or global category
- Local Influence:
  - E.G. "My influence helped them socially, but hurt them professionally."
  - E.G. "Their influence gave me a place to belong, but prevented me from being prepared to explore other ideas."
  - Refinement: May be measured "along dimensions" such as:
    - Personal vs interpersonal vs professional
    - Skill-based
    - Personality-based
    - Etc... (There are tons with varying categorical levels of refinement)
  - Refinement: Dimensions may be measured relative to the individual, based on what they appreciate and desire.
- Global Influence:
  - E.G. "This influence was net positive in all ways."
  - One could argue that "giving someone what they want" isn't always a positive influence for someone in the long run.
    - Should you put more time into work or family life? What's the balance?
    - Should someone be more engaged in helping the poor or environmentalism? Can you find time for every important thing?

Some decisive variables (written discretely, though actually continuous):

Inputs:

Interaction: (a) Interactive, (b) not interactive
Type of Influence: (a) Interactive, (b) not interactive
Effort: (a) Try to influence others, (b) don't try to influence others
Receiver Acknowledgement:

Outputs/Consequences:

Quality of Influence: (a) Good influence, (b) bad influence
Appreciation of receiver:

Along the continuum of influence, how do you promote the good?

Null Approach (1): Don't interact with people. Go to work, do your job, and leave. Return home, watch TV, don't think about it. Minimizing any influence minimizes both the good and bad. On the logical extreme, perhaps suicide taunts some with the perceived value of non-impact. As if non-existence is better for the larger system. Silly response? For about 3 years, I fundamentally changed my belief system and questioned whether my comments would actually beneficial.

Null Approach (2): Interact with people, but don't care about what influence you're having. I see this a lot.

Bad Response:

Good response:

Personal experience.

Observations:

Question:

I've questioned which ideas I hold are valuable enough to present to . A question long on my heart is: "

Sources:

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/business/20corner.html