MANAGEMENT
Stephen R Covey, the celebrated management scientist, guru and a prolific writer on the subject of management in his best-selling book, “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People”, coined the terms ‘Circle of Concern and Circle of Influence’. In explaining these terms, he relied heavily on aspecta of individual pro-activeness or reactiveness. His emphasis was to recognise the distinction between the two and then respond, preferably pre-emptively, that is pro-actively. While pro-active approach to any segment of life is good, it is in my view, not entirely incorrect to remain sometimes, depending on each differently, distinct occasions, to be ‘re-active’. Our responses to everyday life situations stem out of “what do you control and what do you not?”
For precise distinction between ‘concern’ and ‘influence’, I will draw from the source. Stephen says, “We have a wide range of concerns – our health, our children, problems at work, the national debt, nuclear war. We could separate those from things in which we have no particular mental or emotional involvement by creating a ‘Circle of Concern’.” It therefore follows that by the process of elimination, looking at the Circle of Concern, we can each arrive at may be micro levels, on what we can control and do something about, this is the ‘Circular of Influence’.”
For the piece, I will not allow myself to be tempted with pro-activity or reactivity, per se. Instead, see how ‘concerns’ and ‘influences’ should be addressed.
It is significant for any manager/supervisor to remain conscious about what is their domain. The ability to be within specified domain is the crux to remain focused on objectives. Cast a glance at our new breed of politicians, they just do not restrain themselves to their respective domains – they blatantly overstep the demarcated lines. Whose purpose is served when the minister for Railways comments on foreign policy issue (not his sphere of influence) or the politician responsible for education, offering advice on Indus water treaty? None. Nobody gains.
Stand up and be counted, is a very noble principle, but its usage cannot be indiscriminate. The weather, the political landscape, the laws, the rules and the regulations are all beyond ‘influence’ to the large majority. But, we find in our midst, many who think, it is their sacred responsibility to comment on anything that comes to their notice. Relate this to, how much valuable productive time is lost, when you focus on what you cannot change, alter or amend.
This however is not to suggest and preclude, the importance of any individual, whose quest is to broaden the knowledge base. The gathering of knowledge should be wide-spread; its application is something, which may not ‘now’ be of relevance to your job-description. Recognise that.
Despite passionate demand and desire of many individuals, both within and outside the US; they cannot de-seat, Donald Trump; then should this be given time and attention? No. But the knowledge his actions will come to impact upon your organisation or economy must be focused upon; and therefore from what was an area of concern, you realise the need for it to become an area of influence.
Perhaps, it is good to examine where should the focus be? Evaluate the power you possess to change. Is that power and talent lying and buried under Himalayan inertia or is it being used to do, what ought to be done; or is it being exploited to its full potential, for individual and organisational growth. Most of us fail to recognise our individual power of influence, to change. We tend to succumb to remarks, “… this is the way, it has always been done” or “…. the engine is working, don’t try anything adventurously, new”. Recognise the area of influence and be then the change agent.
In meetings, I have come across colleagues, who would begin a comment with, “we must …” Now, who is this we”? I committed a similar blunder, whilst being in conversation, with a chairman I worked for almost a decade. Being a sharp and astute businessman and entrepreneur, he asked, “When you say, we should … who it is in your mind, between us that has to do? Is it me or is it you?” he followed up. On my part, there was complete failure to recognise that what needed to be done, was within the domain of my “sphere of influence” and for which purpose, I was invested, with the adequate quantum of authority.
To a task that was within my domain, unwittingly I was trying to classify it as an “area of concern”. Sheepishly, I remarked “it is me”. We can’t expect others to do, what is within the realm of your authority properly enshrined or even presumed, but should proceed to do. The excuses, we find not to do, are all in the imaginative ambit of ‘Circle of Concern’.
In our daily activity of management, the determination of a singular objective, its purpose must remain focused upon. There ought to be no room for wavering, halting and turning back. Once, these are established, by defining ‘concern’ and ‘influence’ the objectives must emerge with absolute clarity. To what you can influence, act with unflinching faith that it will make a difference. It does.
Mother Teresa had beautifully summed up the thought of how you contribute when you relate to your circle of Influence; said she, “We ourselves feel that what we are doing is just a drop in the ocean. But the ocean would be less because of that missing drop.” No man or woman has changed the world, barring those who knew what they needed to change and focus upon.
Situations, circumstances, events or even people can never be altered by invasive influence. If these are to be changed, they must come from within ie change what you can. Do not waste precious life and time lamenting on what is within the scope of your circle of concern. Instead, invest in influence.
While I was sleeping in my bed there, things were happening in this world (Circle of Concern) that directly concerned me – nobody asked me, consulted me – they just went out and did things (They – Circle of influence) … and changed my life” (Lorraine Hansberry). In the quote, the bracketed portions are my insertions!
In the economic landscape, business development people concerned with operational controls or even more dangerously operation control people concerned with business development are a recipe of disaster. They on their own respective fiefdoms have carved their ‘Circles of Influences’. These must only remain in harmony, without any being compromised. Both segments have to learn to live, co-exist within the set norms; you can’t change the rules to do business or to compromise controls. All the many ‘areas of influences’ operating in an organisation, must remain in step with each other.
All individuals impact upon colleagues through their behaviour. Throwing a stone into placid waters of inactivity not only disturbs and displaces water, but it creates ripples that spread and touch upon all corners of the pond. Similarly, the results arising from the created focus on ‘sphere of influence’ would pervade the organisation’s length and breadth. JFK, had remarked, “One person can make a difference and every person should try.”
Let goodness prevail in every moment of your life and you will see, the benefits in your ‘Circle of Concern’ and in the ‘Circle of Influence’, too.
The writer is a senior banker and freelance columnist
