The Four Ways We Control Instead of Influence

Most leaders don't realize they're shutting the room down. They think they're solving the problem.

In this episode, we break down Matt Norman's concept of the "Four Ds" — four communication habits that silently kill collaboration: being too declarative, too dense, too durative, and too definitive. We explore what happens to teams when a leader controls the conversation instead of influencing it, and why the people around you disengage, withhold, resent, and resist when they feel boxed out of the process.

The fix isn't saying less. It's learning to restrain yourself before you explain yourself.

Read the full article at mattnorman.com.

Transcript

0:00

Picture a meeting. You know the exact kind I mean. Everyone's sitting around the conference table, maybe uh maybe a few people are dialed in on the screen. Right, the classic hybrid setup. Exactly. And the energy in the room is actually pretty good, right up until a team member raises a genuinely complex issue, like a really thorny problem. Oh, the kind that requires some real mental heavy lifting to figure out. Yeah. But before anyone can even fully process what was just said, another leader in the room immediately jumps in to address it. They just lay the whole thing out. Yep. And within seconds, the entire room goes completely awkwardly dead silent. Like you can practically hear the hum of the air conditioning. Oh man, it is a very specific, heavy kind of silence, isn't it? You can almost feel the air pressure drop as the organic energy is just sucked right out of the room. And the fascinating thing is if you look around that conference table, those people didn't go quiet because they suddenly laxed ideas. No, not at all. They went quiet because of the exact communication approach that responding leader just took. So in today's deep dive, our mission is to figure out if you, sitting there listening to us right now, might accidentally be the person causing that silence. Which is a tough mirror to look into, but so necessary. It really is. Yeah. Because whether you are leading a team at work, running a volunteer committee, or even just sitting around your own dinner table, we want to look at how we accidentally shut people down. And more importantly, how to shift from merely controlling a room to actually influencing it. It's a crucial distinction, honestly, because influence and control, they look very similar on the surface, but they operate on completely different internal mechanisms. Right. And the insights we're unpacking today, they come directly from a really compelling piece of leadership writing by Matt Norman. It's titled The Four Ways We Control Instead of Influence. Okay, let's unpack this because I really want to know exactly what went wrong in that silent room. Yeah, we've all been there. We really have. We've all felt that sudden drop in energy. We've seen the symptom, but how do we diagnose the actual behavior? Like, what is going on in the psychology of that leader that causes them to just shut everything down? Well, to understand the behavior, you really have to look at the pressure that leader is likely under. Because often this doesn't come from a malicious place, right? It's not about wanting to dominate people. Oh, interesting. So it's not just an ego trip. Usually no. It comes from this false assumption that to be valuable, a leader must have the immediate answer. And that anxiety drives a very specific, tight style of communication. Okay. The text actually breaks this down into four traits. It calls them the four D's. And when a leader blends these elements together, they are practically guaranteeing the death of any organic collaboration. Aaron Powell Well, let's break down that profile then. What does this um this anxious controlling communication actually sound like in the room? Aaron Powell So the foundation of it is being declarative. Declarative. Okay. This happens when someone relies entirely on absolute facts, firm opinions, and just incredibly rigid ideas. Aaron Powell Like leaving no room for debate. Aaron Ross Powell Exactly. They present their thoughts as objective reality rather than, you know, an interpretation of the facts. There's no flexibility at all. It's simply this is how it is. Which leaves absolutely no room for nuance. I mean, if you present your opinion as gravity, like an undeniable law of physics, no one is going to debate you. Aaron Powell No, they're just gonna sit there and nod. Right. But a leader projecting that much certainty usually has a lot of data to back it up, which I imagine leads directly to the second trait. Aaron Powell It does, yeah. Because they feel the need to prove that declarative stance, they become dense. Aaron Powell Dense. So just overloading the room. Completely. They overload the room with details, unfiltered information, complex rationale. They don't synthesize the data for the audience. They just dump it all at once to fortify their position. Aaron Powell It's like trying to catch a dozen tennis balls thrown at you all at the same time. Oh, that's a great way to put it. Right. You don't just drop a few of them. Yeah. You throw your hands up and drop all of them just to protect your face. When someone hits you with that much raw data, the brain just goes into self-defense mode. Aaron Powell Completely. It completely shuts down because it can't even begin to formulate a response, let alone a structured counterargument. And because the brain's cognitive load is maxed out, the leader naturally falls into the third trap, which is that they become durative. Durative, meaning they just keep going. Yep. They simply continue speaking for a long, long time. They don't pause to ask for input. They don't check the temperature of the room. It just becomes a monologue rather than a dialogue. They're essentially filibustering their own meeting. Yes, filibustering, exactly. I mean, if you are listening to this right now and realizing you haven't taken a breath to let your team speak in your last three project updates, this is your wake-up call. You are literally suffocating the interaction. Which brings us right to the final nail in the coffin. The leader wraps up this dense, durative monologue by being definitive. Definitive. Right. They speak in a way that sounds completely final and conclusive. The case is closed, the verdict has been handed down. What's fascinating here is that these four behaviors have one immediate effect. They completely control the direction of the interaction. Wait, I have to push back here for a second. Sure. Aren't leaders supposed to be definitive? I mean, if you're in charge, you're expected to project certainty and make the hard calls. At what point does being a strong, confident presence cross the line into this uh toxic, controlling 4D situation? Aaron Powell That's a really fair question. The line is drawn at the difference between providing clear direction and completely stripping the room of its agency. Aaron Powell Stripping agency. Okay, explain that. Well, when you are definitive to the point of being conclusive, meaning you present a problem and in the exact same breath supply, the one and only acceptable answer, you're telling your team that their critical thinking is simply not required. Right. You're saying, I just need you to execute, not think. Exactly. But you hired these people for their diverse perspectives. You brought them to the table to solve problems by being declarative, dense, durative, and definitive, you aren't just pointing to the destination. You're taking the steering wheel out of their hands entirely. Precisely. You're completely controlling the narrative. Okay, so we've diagnosed the behavior, and we can clearly see the underlying anxiety that might cause a leader to act this way. Right. But now we really need to look at the fallout. How does this actually impact the people sitting around that table? Like when a leader drops that kind of bomb on the room, what is happening psychologically to the team? So according to the source material, people generally process this kind of control and communication in one of two immediate ways. The first reaction is a sharp sense of agitation. Well, it feels like the most natural human response. Yeah. I mean, if someone is filibustering me, speaking in absolutes, and treating my expertise as completely irrelevant, my blood pressure is definitely going to spike. Of course it is. I feel like my voice is just being stripped away. I'm just a spectator in a meeting I was actually invited to participate in. Exactly. The agitation is basically a rebellion against that loss of control. But the second reaction the text identifies is arguably much more insidious. What is it? If the team doesn't feel agitated, they often feel relieved. Here's where it gets really interesting. Because I completely get why agitation is a bad thing for team morale and culture. But why is relief framed as a negative consequence? Well I mean, in a high-strep corporate environment, isn't it genuinely nice to have a boss who just handles the messy things for you? It's kind of like doing your kids' math homework for them. Sure, they're relieved in the moment because the pressure's off and they get to go watch TV, but is that actually hurting the team? If we connect this to the bigger picture, that analogy of doing the kids' math homework unlocks the entire problem. Okay, how so? Because whether the immediate reaction is agitation or relief, the negative consequences to the team's long-term capability are identical. In your homework analogy, the child is relieved today, sure. But did they learn the math? No, not at all. Right. Have they developed the critical thinking skills to solve tomorrow's problem? Absolutely not. So who is going to have to do the math homework next week and the week after that? The parent. Exactly. Or in the corporate setting, the controlling leader. By making the team relieved today, the leader is actively trapping themselves into doing all the heavy lifting forever. They become the bottleneck for every single decision. Wow. And that bottleneck creates a pretty brutal sequence of long-term consequences, doesn't it? It really does. The source material maps out a four-stage decline in team dynamics when control replaces influence. And the very first thing a team does when they realize their input isn't actually needed is disengage. Disengage. Yep. They realize you are going to decide everything anyway, so they just pull back mentally. They stop investing their cognitive energy. It's like quiet quitting before the term even existed. You just retreat into the background. Right. But that initial disengagement quickly mutates into something much more active. The second stage is that people withhold. Withhold. So they have the answers, but they keep them hidden. Exactly. They become guarded. A team member might be sitting there with a brilliant, totally diverse perspective that could literally save the project from disaster, but they stop offering it. Because the environment has taught them that new ideas are just an interruption to the boss's monologue. Aaron Powell That's exactly it. So they just hoard their insights. And honestly, if I'm sitting in a room constantly biting my tongue and withholding my actual expertise because the boss has already definitively stated the outcome, I am eventually going to get really angry about it. Aaron Powell Which brings us right to the third consequence people resent. Resentment. Yeah, that makes sense. This is where the culture really starts to rot. They despise feeling pushed toward a conclusion by someone else's sheer volume of words. They become deeply frustrated with the leader. But even more damaging, I bet they become frustrated with themselves for lacking the agency to speak up. It's a highly toxic, internalized kind of frustration. Oh, absolutely. It eats away at them. That internal friction is so incredibly draining. You go home exhausted, not from doing the actual work, but from navigating the ego dynamics of the room. And I have to imagine that resentment doesn't just stay in their heads, it has to bleed into the actual work eventually. You're spot on. It bleeds directly into the execution, which is the fourth and final consequence. People resist. Resist, okay. Because they didn't contribute to the idea. They do not feel any ownership over it. And if they don't feel ownership, they will not own the conclusions. Right. They will subtly, or perhaps even overtly, sabotage the implementation of whatever plan the leader just declared. Aaron Powell So even if the controlling leader's idea was technically brilliant, like even if it was the absolute best strategy on paper, the execution is going to fail. Aaron Powell Yes. Because the team is actively resisting a plan they had no hand in creating. That is the ultimate bottom line of this entire dynamic. Aaron Powell It's a pretty harsh reality. Aaron Powell It is. The text exposes this harsh reality about leadership controlling conversations, creates the illusion of efficiency. Leaders who operate this way often make a lot of short-term progress. They check boxes quickly. Aaron Powell But the long-term cost is astronomical. Aaron Powell Exactly. You end up with severely damaged relationships, the leader becomes completely isolated, the team is burdened with unnecessary stress, and you entirely miss out on what could have been far superior collaborative solutions. Aaron Powell You look like you're moving fast, but you're actually leaving your entire engine behind. Aaron Powell That's a perfect way to phrase it. Aaron Powell So if controlling the room is this destructive, if it inevitably leads to disengagement, withholding, resentment, and resistance, how do we actually course correct? Like we need actionable steps here. We do. How does the person listening right now, who might recognize a bit of themselves in those four D's actually shift their behavior? Aaron Powell Well, the source provides a fantastic, highly memorable antidote. It's a new core mantra for anyone who wants to genuinely collaborate. Okay, lay it on us. The phrase is this train yourself to restrain yourself before you explain yourself. Train yourself to restrain yourself before you explain yourself. Okay, it's incredibly catchy. It is, yeah. But it is also asking you to put a massive break on your own ego. I mean, it requires you to sit in the discomfort of an unsolved problem without immediately jumping in to play the hero. Right. It requires immense discipline to move from control to true influence. The author outlines four specific behavioral shifts to practice this restraint in real time. Okay, let's go through them. What's the first shift? The first shift is to check your evaluation. Check your evaluations. Right. The text warns that the quickest path, right back to controlling behavior, is deciding what is right or wrong too early in the process. Now, problem solving is obviously a core leadership skill. Sure, you have to solve problems. But when you lay down a verdict, the moment a problem is introduced, you drastically narrow the aperture of possible ideas. You're telling the brain to stop looking for alternatives. So it's about consciously suspending your judgment. But sitting there, suspending judgment while a team looks at you for guidance, that can feel very passive. I mean, you can't just stare at them in total silence. How do you bridge that gap without reverting to a dense explanation? You bridge that gap with the second behavioral shift, which is to swap solutions for questions. Yes. Now we all know that sometimes a crisis hits and a fire just needs to be put out immediately. Trevor Burrus, Jr. Right. If the building is on fire, point to the exit. Exactly. But in everyday operations, the people around you are processing information at vastly different rates. They often need to talk an issue out just to feel heard and fully understand the contours of the problem. So instead of jumping in with, here's the three-step plan to fix this, you restrain your expertise. You lean into curiosity. Yes. What does that actually sound like in practice, though? You ask things like, why is that particular metric so important to you? Or how do you think we can navigate this roadblock? Just simple open questions. Right. Because it shifts the cognitive burden of problem solving back into the shared space. It signals that you value their analytical skills, not just their ability to follow your instructions. It invites them into the architecture of the solution instead of locking them out. Exactly. And I imagine that requires a real level of humility, which probably leads directly into how you handle your own ideas when you finally do share them. You hit the nail on the head, that is the third shift. When you do speak, you must qualify your opinions. Qualify them, meaning soften them. Sort of. Every single one of us develops opinions based on our own unique filters, biases, and lived experiences, right? The person sitting across a table has a completely different filter. If you state your opinion as an absolute, you are completely disregarding their lived experience. You have to openly acknowledge that your view isn't the absolute objective truth of the universe. It is just a perspective. Yes. You soften the edges of your statements. Instead of a declarative absolute, you say, Well, my experience tells me this is the best route, though I'm very open to hearing other perspectives. I see. Or you offer an idea and say, here's one way to look at it. What is yours? It shows that you have a firm stance and you've thought deeply about the issue, but you are leaving the door wide open for others to walk through and challenge it. Aaron Powell Which completely neutralizes the definitive aspect we talked about earlier. It removes the finality. Exactly. So what does this all mean when you actually have to lay out a complex strategy? Like you have to explain things eventually. Right. And that's where the final shift comes in. The text recommends you tighten your explanations. Tighten them. The goal is to make your communication a dialogue, not a download. Communicate just one layer of your explanation at a time, keep it brief, and leave it open to feedback. I have to push back a little on this concept. Go ahead. If I have a highly complex interconnected plan and I only give my team one single layer of my explanation at a time, won't they feel like I'm hiding something from them? Doesn't that feel a little manipulative, like I'm just breadcrumbing them along instead of just being fully transparent as a leader? Aaron Powell This raises an important question. And honestly, it's a very natural fear for leaders who really pride themselves on transparency. But tightening your explanations is not about withholding the truth or being secretive with the master plan. Aaron Powell Okay, then what is it about? Aaron Powell It is entirely about the psychology of pacing. Aaron Powell Pacing. So pacing the delivery so they don't just drown in the data. Exactly. Think of it as the direct countermeasure to the tennis ball analogy you used earlier. Right. If you dump a massive, highly complex 10-point plan on a team in one single durative breath, they are overwhelmed. They physically and emotionally cannot process it. Aaron Powell, which means they definitely cannot offer meaningful critique. Exactly. Tightening means you give them the foundation point one and you pause. You let them digest the implications of that single point. You let them poke holes in it, validate it, or adjust it. And then once that layer is fully understood and agreed upon, you move together to point two. Yes. So it's not hiding the balls. Uh-huh. It's just tossing one ball back and forth, making sure we both have a grip on it before introducing the next one. That's it. Exactly. It prevents that brain shutdown we talked about at the very beginning. It sounds so simple, but it requires profound discipline. Aaron Powell It really does. Because in the heat of the moment, it is so much easier to just talk at people until you feel understood. It takes real restraint to speak briefly, endure a pause, and then actively listen to the response. Train yourself to restrain yourself before you explain yourself. It really is a complete paradigm shift for anyone used to just driving the agenda. Absolutely. We've covered incredible ground today. From diagnosing those conversation-killing behaviors, you know, the anxiety-driven need to be declarative, dense, durative, and definitive. The four D's. The four D's. To mapping out the psychological fallout of a team that just disengages and resists. I want to turn this directly to you, the listener. Yeah, this is the hard part. It is. The source material asks a very pointed, almost uncomfortable question, and I want you to honestly apply it to your own life right now. What meetings or relationships are you controlling right now? It's a confronting question because the answer is almost never zero. No, we all do it. Are you accidentally deploying those four Ds during your weekly check-ins at the office? Are you suffocating the agency of your direct reports because you think efficiency is more important than collaboration? And it's not just in the boardroom either. No. Think about your personal life. Are you being dense and definitive at the dinner table with your partner or your kids? We all slip into these patterns when we feel stressed or overwhelmed, or when we just want to push through a messy situation to get to a clean solution. And the intention might be to help or to relieve pressure, but the reality is that the short-term push causes lasting long-term damage. Right. The resentment builds, the valuable ideas are withheld, and you are less isolated just wondering why no one is helping you paddle the boat. Our journey today was all about recognizing that damage and actively choosing a different path. It's about stepping back from the need to be the smartest, loudest, most definitive voice in the room, and instead embracing restrained and genuine, open-ended curiosity. Stop trying to control the narrative and start creating the space to actually connect and influence. Exactly. It takes daily practice to check your immediate evaluations and to qualify your strong opinions. But the payoff is immense. It really is. You build a team or a family dynamic that actually engages, takes ownership, and drives solutions forward with you rather than despite you. And that leads me to a final thought I really want to leave you with today. Let's hear it. We spent a lot of time analyzing the negative silence. You know, that heavy dead air that happens when you completely shut a room down with an overwhelming explanation. But what if you actively chose to step back and create a different kind of silence? If you stop immediately filling every awkward pause with your own definitive answers, what unexpected brilliance might your team or your family step up and fill that void with? Wow. We are so culturally conditioned to treat silence like it's a problem that desperately needs to be solved. But maybe, just maybe, silence isn't a problem at all. Maybe it is the exact fertile space where true influence actually begins. That is a very powerful perspective to end on. Taking a breath and leaving room for others is where the real work happens. Thank you so much for taking this deep dive with us today. Your challenge before the day is over. Look for one opportunity to restrain yourself. Try swapping just one solution for a question and see what happens to the energy in the room. We'll see you next time.