沃顿商学院全套笔记-二十七-
沃顿商学院全套笔记（二十七）
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P101：37_表现结果.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So far we've looked at summary statistics of the leverage inventory results and how。
they kind of fit together， how they cohere or don't。
But we haven't yet related that to anything else。 We don't yet know why it matters。
The theory is that those behaviors will make a person more or less influential but we haven't。
shown any evidence of that so far。 In our 360 degree surveys when we ask these third parties to provide evidence we also。
include an additional few questions。 We consider these performance questions。
It's a battery of questions that are intended to measure a person's impact in their organization。
So we want to hold constant the level of responsibility they have， maybe their technical skills and。
ask given where they were and what their portfolio was， did they have a big impact or。
little impact on the organization。 So the survey questions are all getting at that and they are very close to each other。
and together they form this well behaved battery and the responses come on this nine， point scale。
It's a little bit different scale。 It's from much less than expected to much more than expected。
We aggregate up to a single performance measure。 This is what it looked like。
This is our first 400 or so students and you can see a kind of a normal distribution there。
of impact or performance in organizations。 These students come from MBA programs at Yale and Wharton a little bit Columbia NYU so it。
perhaps isn't too surprising that they're all almost all above expectations but the。
question becomes okay there's still a distribution here。
Can we see anything that helps us understand why some would be on the right side of that。
distribution with even higher performance。 Some might be on the left side even lower。
Can we understand and ideally can we help people move from the left side to the right， side。
So let's look at how those data relate in our survey。
Now that we have performance measures and these behaviors we can see how they relate。
Here is a picture and at this point we have this is about 850 MBAs and executive MBAs。
And what we've done is we've plotted that performance metric that battery of questions。
that boils down to a single performance metric。 We've plotted that on the y axis in terms of standard deviations above or below average。
And then on the x we've plotted the frequency with which the participant is reported doing。
these things。 We have 12 different plots there。 Those are the 12 different tactics。
Each one shows influence as reported by the third party raters related to their use of， the tactics。
So for example in that top left corner that is the agency tactic and you can see that。
well we've thrown little summary curves on each of them。
These are little lowest non-parametric lowest curves to give you a sense of what the trend， is。
But what do you see？ This is the first of our really kind of empirical exercise。
What do you see in these data？ So I think the first thing to see is that they are all positively related。
That in all 12 cases more of the behavior is related to， is positively related to more， impact。
There's this positive correlation between doing these things and being reported as having。
impact in organizations。 The other thing you see is that they're not all equally related。
So some are steeper than others and that steepness indicates a tighter correlation between the。
behavior and the outcome， the impact。 So for example agency is quite steep。 The steep is typically。
Intentionality is quite steep。 Coalition is pretty steep。 And then others are a little bit flat。
So ethos for example， a little bit flat， might a little bit flat。
Allocentrism kind of disappointingly flat。 They're positive but not as doesn't seem to be as tightly connected to impact。
A third thing you might see is that there's less variance on some tactics than others。
So for example intentionality turns out our MBAs and executive MBAs are relatively tightly， packed。
They're all pretty intentional folks。 Whereas might and ethos much more variance。
And then some of them seem to kind of round off。 There might be diminishing returns to some of these tactics。
Whereas agency and intentionality don't seem to diminish much。
We see ethos and might and team building kind of kind of topping and not quite turning over。
but flattening out some。 But again big picture。 We're getting evidence now that the frequency with which people use these tactics is connected。
to the impact they're seeing is having in their organizations。
We can aggregate that up to these factors we were talking about。 Soft power， smart power。
hard power。 Again， we all have positive relations。 And by the time we put them all together。
we get a pretty tight， pretty positive connection。
between the frequency with which people are exercising the tactic and the impact they're。
having on their organization。 Finally we can begin to get a sense of how these tactics matter differently in different。
situations。 Eventually， maybe in another 10 years， we'll be able to tell you， well， this is kind of。
a recipe in one industry and this is a different recipe in a different industry。
We don't have that level of granularity right now。
But we do have results from multiple business schools。 And we can ask， okay。
what are the data saying the relative importance of soft power， smart， power and hard power are。
So in this graph what I'm going to show you is the regression coefficients on smart， hard。
and soft power when we regress influence on each of the students' soft， smart and hard。
power scores。 So for each student， we know their impact in their organizations as reported by their。
third party raters。 And we know their scores for how often they're using soft power。
smart power and hard power。 And we can just ask， okay， at Penn， what's the regression say？
How important， what are the returns to soft power among the students at Penn relative to。
their influence returns to smart power and ask the same for all four schools。 This is what we find。
Again， what do we make of it？ These are regression coefficients， remember？
So the first thing you'd say is， well， it looks like smart power and all four schools。
smart power is reported as being either the most important or tied for the most important。
of the three。 Terrifically interesting because people hadn't even studied smart power before。
As far as we know， this is the first empirical study of first empirical operationalization。
and study of smart power and yet it's popping out as the most important one。
Then you do see some differences across schools。 So for example， NYU and to a lesser extent。
Columbia， soft power isn't as important among， the students and where they've worked before they came to school。
That's kind of stereotypical， especially with NYU。 Most of those folks， not most。
a large percentage of those folks come from financial services。
and financial services is not an industry known for the importance of soft power。
You might flip it around with Yale， for example， where soft power comes in as more important。
than hard power。 Again， kind of landing right on top of the stereotype since Yale's known for doing more。
not-for-profit work than other schools。 And then Penn， not to tutor on horn。
but they do have this perfectly balanced ratio of smart， power and hard power are equally important。
at least according to the data at this point。
in time。 So a little sense in how the ratio and the kind of the recipe for optimal influence will。
vary by situation。 We see it varying even in the situations that students have been working in across schools。
[ Ambient Noise ]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P102：38_聚类分析.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
A final analysis that we'd like to do with these data is what's called a cluster analysis。
It allows us to see whether there are groups of students that exhibit similar patterns of。
influence。 And I held off on doing this for years because we didn't have the power and it's kind of。
an alluring analysis to do but it can be deceptive if you don't have a big sample。
But at this point we have over a thousand and it's time to start looking at this kind， of thing。
So what we find is that there are clusters distinct clusters in our data and I think， it's useful。
it gives you a way of thinking， kind of a scaffolding for thinking about where。
you fit and therefore what you might want to work on。 So broadly we see five clusters here。
I'll describe each one in a little more detail but we see the buddy cluster which is about。
a third of our population。 We see another third which we call the analyst culture。
We have about a half of a third， a sixth in the nascent culture。
About 10% in the multi and a little bit less than 10% about 8% in what we call a hammer， cluster。
So let's dive into each of these to help you better understand the clusters that are out。
there and where you might fit among these clusters。 So first is the nascent cluster。
The visualization here is kind of a beta visualization we're working with where we take each of the。
12 tactics on the radial here and then the smaller the pie associated with that tactic。
the lower the percentile on that particular tactic。
So we've also color coded the pie slices according to the factor whether it's hard power， smart。
power or soft power。 So in these graphs the two slices might an ethos count as hard。
We've just kind of simplified the factor analysis into these two are hard power。
The four green ones are smart power and the six blue ones are soft power。
And in the nascent cluster this is just a representative participant with the relatively。
low score on all three factors。 Nacens just aren't really using much of the toolbox。
They're not getting much leverage because they're not doing these behaviors。
And again this is something like 16% of our sample。
The analyst cluster which is a much bigger chunk of our sample something like 31%。
These are folks who are using smart power extensively。 They're high on smart power。
They're low on soft power and they're kind of in the middle on hard power。
This is a cluster that is one of the stereotypes of NBA's。 These are folks。
you know the caricature of someone who wants to stay with their computer， stay。
work on the spreadsheet， not really interested or even thinking about these other。
tactics especially the relationship tactics of soft power tactics。
The buddy cluster is another one of the NBA's stereotypes。 Again about a third of our sample。
This one shows a person who is very high on all the soft power tactics。
They're doing all the relationship behaviors at a high frequency but they're almost doing。
no smart power whatsoever。 They're below average on that and again kind of middling or ambiguous on the hard power。
side。 So this is a cluster I did I would have known existed。
I kind of discovered it over the years when I would do the debrief with students and I。
would ever now then stumble across a group of them who were really high on these soft。
power tactics but they really weren't paying attention or even aware of the smart power， ones。
Hammers are happily a smaller percentage of our students but kind of the most stereotypical。
in that these are hard power people。 Above average use of might and ethos and then not doing a lot on the soft power and smart。
power。 Finally we have these multi's。 Multi's are about 10% of our sample。
These are folks who are above average on all three。 They're making good use of the toolbox。
These are little budding Abraham Lincoln's who are able to play on all 12 influence tactics。
You might ask whether it matters and because we have those performance measures the reports。
of how much impact participants are having in their organizations we can see if it matters。
and this is what we find。 This is the average impact rating。
average performance rating in our survey for members， of each of the five clusters。
So the Y-axis shows the number of standard deviations above or below average。
The students performance score， their impact score is。
So you see the students in the nascent cluster， the average impact there was negative one standard。
deviations and then on the far right the students in the multi， the 10% of our multi's their。
average impact was something like plus one standard deviation。
The middle three clusters these are kind of one tool clusters。 The analysts， the hammer， the buddy。
these are one tool clusters are all near average。 They're very close to zero standard deviations which means their average impact。
Now this of course is a simplification。 These are just the means for each of the clusters。
Those are big clusters so there's going to be a distribution。
So I just want to be more clear about that distribution。
Here is the full distribution of performance scores within each of those clusters。
The top is the nascent and you see that even though most of them sit below average the highest。
impactful the most， the best performers there actually do reach average and get a little。
bit above average。 All the way to the bottom are the multi's and you can see that almost all the performance。
scores sit above average but then the left tail there are some people in those multi's。
even though they're using all those tactics that aren't quite having their impact。
And then you can see the three one tool factors in the middle all kind of straddle that average。
line and you have some folks above and some folks below。
But the big result here is the distinction across the five clusters。
These are big mean differences across the five clusters as a function of how many tools they're。
actually using in their influence toolbox。 [ Silence ]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P103：39_前进之路和处方.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
At this point， you should have a better understanding of your results， what they mean， and how。
they fit into the data we have from a broader sample。
We really want to push you to do some reflection on what the results mean for you and where。
you want to take them。 So， I want to suggest a few debrief questions。 One is。
what is the strength that you can build on？ Everyone has go-to tools。 At the very least。
you've got something that you use better than you use the other tools。 What is that strength？
What is that foothold in your influence toolbox that you can build on？
We also want to look at the other side of the ledger， and this is where most of the work， is。
What is one strategy you'd like to do more of？ It may be that there are many strategies you'd like to do more of。
but we know from， decades of research and psychology that if you try to change everything at one time。
you're， not going to change anything。 So let's be very focused and push on what is one that you'd like to do more of。
That kind of focus is going to be helpful in actually making a change。
A couple of follow-up questions about that。 If you want to do more of this thing。
why is it you haven't already been doing it？ This is an important insight to have before you can really make change。
What has been getting in the way？ What is the root cause here that you need to address to actually get over that hump？
So， some reflection on that is important。 And then finally。
what is one concrete step you can take to use this strategy more？ What is the plan？
It's not enough to say， "I want to be more intentional，" or "I want to use might more effectively。"。
Okay， what's that going to look like tomorrow？ What's that going to look like？
What is one concrete step？ Again， one concrete step you can take on the path toward making change。
So this set of debrief questions is important for making these results real in your life。
and building on them going forward。 So just to wrap up a couple of closing thoughts。 One。
and these are basically themes across this half module。 One is the importance of being multiple。
This is one of the initial motivations for this research and this tool is the emphasis。
on using the full range of tools at your disposal。 A full toolbox is a balanced toolbox。
Pathos can offset logos， team building can offset might， and so on。
You're less likely to do too much of one thing if you have the counterbalancing tactic already。
in your toolbox。 A second idea is that this multiple use gives you more flexibility。
Situations vary， and so you need a wide range of tools。 In fact， the more responsibilities you have。
the further you go in your career， the more， those situations are going to vary。
There's a nice quote from the conductor Azawa in a recent book called "Absolutely on Music。"。
He's talking about musicians， but it's a good analogy for how power works for the rest， of us。
He says， "An outstanding musician will have a bunch of pockets to draw from。
He'll be watching the conductor and think， 'Oh， so that's how he wants us to do this。
part and pull something out of his pocket over here。
A young musician might not have so many pockets to draw from。
We want you to have lots of pockets to draw from。 The more responsibilities。
the greater your ambitions， the greater the challenges， the。
more you'll need to draw from multiple pockets。"， Second closing thought is that power accretes。
It's habits and layers。 It's not one big decision。 It's what you do every day， basically。
A couple of quotes from Jeff Feffer along these lines， Feffer says， "Building a power。
base is a process of accumulating leverage and resource control little by little over， time。
There's only one way to become more effective in building power and using influence。
That's practice。"， And then finally， just like the principle of compound interest。
becoming somewhat more， effective in every situation can over time leave you in a very different and much better。
place。 When I close with the idea and in the reminder that these are malleable behaviors， by design。
this survey taps into behaviors。 There are actions that you're currently taking。
There are 67 of them and I challenge you that if there's any one of those you want to change。
you can change it。 I cannot believe that people aren't able to change any one of those 67。
That malleability is important。 What's vital because they're malleable is that we learn from experience。
Again， Feffer gives us a great quote to end on。 He says。
"Many people who think they have 20 years of experience really don't。
They just have one year of experience， repeated 20 times。
Let's not be those people。 We've given you good little foundation to work with now。
It's up to you to decide where you want to take it。"， [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P104：40_陷阱模块简介.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Welcome back to the fourth and final week of influence。
This week is a little different。 We can't let you get out of here。
without challenging you on a few fronts。 You've noticed by now that ethics comes up。
it's been coming up really since week one。 And we touch on it， we raise questions。
we poke a little bit， but we haven't dropped into it。 In the first half this week。
we wanna talk about ethics。 Wanna give you some frameworks？ Wanna share some data？
And we wanna push you a little more systematically， to think about your own ethical framework。
In the second half we're gonna talk about status。 And you might think of this as a warning label。
on the entire course。 We've spent four weeks now， three weeks now。
helping you build your influence toolkit， hopefully helping you cultivate power and influence。
Now we wanna say， "Hold on， "there's some dangers to becoming influential。
"There's ways in which people change when they have power。"。
So let's try to understand that a little bit， as a way of inoculating。
or at least taking the edge off of the risk of building power。 Finally。
we have a small closing module to wrap things up。 Hope you enjoy。 (silence)， [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P105：41_行为伦理学简介.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
We want to open our ethics discussion with some recent research from the psychology community。
that I think provides an important foundation for us。
The psychologists have talked about behavioral across a wide range of domains for decades。
but only recently started thinking about behavioral ethics。
We've given you an interesting article by Banaji et al out of Harvard Business Review。
they title it provocatively， "How Unethical Are You？"， And they raised some interesting questions。
I think their motivation is to raise awareness and we want to have that level of awareness。
so I want to start with this article。 They begin the article by asking the question。
"Answer true or false？ I am an ethical decision maker。"。
And I think most of us will be inclined almost in a knee jerk way to answer true。
I am an ethical decision maker and they want to challenge us on that。
And they don't want to challenge us because they think we're bad people。
They want to challenge us because they know from a number of psychological studies now。
that we have biases that will lead us to be less ethical than we think we are。
And so let's just have a real quick summary of what they find and argue。
They basically say neither strong convictions about being ethical or good intentionals to。
be ethical are enough to ensure being ethical。 And in particular the problems arise because one。
we show implicit prejudices。 We have these associations across social categories。 So for example。
we might have associate good or bad with some demographics， with some social。
categories and with others。 This has been studied now with the implicit association test by millions of people。
And there is some debate about the meaning of these scores but what seems to be， where。
there seems to be some consensus is the strength of the association that many people have that。
lead us to have these implicit attitudes beyond our awareness often， good or bad with different。
social categories that can affect decision making， that can affect beliefs。
That is one of the reasons they are concerned about intentions and convictions not being， enough。
A second is in-group favoritism。 We are inclined to treat those that are in our in-group differently to reason about them。
differently and it leads us to be biased and in some cases less ethical。
Some people have argued recently that some of the biggest challenges we have that get。
coded as stereotypes or racism really come down to in-group favoritism， this in-group。
out-group distinction and the challenges that we are so hardwired to favor our in-groups。
Some people make evolutionary explanations， whatever the explanation is， it doesn't be。
one of the root causes。 We tend to reason more favorably about those who are in our in-group。
However， that is defined。 It might be a family， it might be an organization。
it might be a function like engineering。 We tend to reason in a way that's favorable towards those and less favorable towards those。
that are in the out-group。 Third reason is that we over claim credit。
We are self-serving in what we believe we have done and contributed。
This has been found in studies of all kinds。 One of the most famous ones is in marriages。
They go in and say， "Okay， what percentage of these household tasks do you do？"。
And they ask that to both parties。 And of course， this has to add to 100 percent。
They're surveying everybody who's responsible for it。
What they find is something like 85 percent of these tasks add to more than 100 percent。
People are over claiming credit for what they actually do。 They find this in teams at work。
They find this among co-authors of academic papers。 We seem to be hardwired or biased in a way。
Part of it's just we know more about what we do than what others do。
It ends up leading us to over claim credit。 Again。
not because of poor convictions or not because of a desire to be unethical。
It's just the consequence of our perspective and our self-serving biases。 Finally。
we resolve conflicts of interest in a way that favor us。
Many of us believe that we can manage these conflicts of interest we might have in a way。
that's neutral and that they give the example in the article of doctors who。
The big changes in the medical industry in recent years because eventually regulators。
and even doctors themselves realize that some companies if they're trying to persuade you。
to prescribe their drugs actually have an impact even if doctors don't want them to have an impact。
Even if doctors believe that they are neutral and uninfluenced by the tactics that companies。
use and this has led them to basically proscribe in the influence in that industry whatsoever。
That's almost what's necessary because it's impossible for us to resolve perfectly objectively。
the conflicts of interest that we have。 Again， despite intentions。
despite convictions that we want to do so。 Their summary is that we are more biased than we think we are and I'm hugely sympathetic。
to it because it is so related to all the other research and psychology about our biases。
It's a very important starting place。 We are going to be more open to making changes。
We are going to be more open to more honestly making the trade-offs that are necessary when。
you're exerting influence if we're honest with ourselves about our biased starting place。
So I wanted to start there。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P106：42_硬问题调查解读.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
In this lecture， we want to talk about your responses to the hard questions survey that。
we ask you to complete。 The motivation here is to kind of feel our way through the ethics conversation from。
the bottom up， from the ground up。 Instead of sitting back and talking in only abstract terms or philosophically about ethics。
let's ask what you would do in situations that you're apt to face。
Maybe by the time we've asked that in 8， 10， or 12 different scenarios， we'll have a。
better sense of what principles you want to live by， what principles maybe you're not， living by。
but we want to reason up from that concrete experience。 So we put together this scenario。
They were drawn initially from our students in the MBA programs and the executive MBA。
programs who told us about scenarios where they had a challenge of deciding whether。
or not to exerting influence or not。 Whether or not I want to use a tactic。 If I do use it。
how do I use it？ As you know， as we've talked through the course in the last few weeks。
the use of influence， raises ethical questions at every turn。
And we want to have our eyes open about that。 So let's ask。
what would you do in a variety of situations？ So we're going to walk through them one by one。
As we go， I want you to think about a couple of things。
One is what principles are guiding your selection in these vignettes？
You're probably bumping across them。 You find yourself leaning on the same principle again and again。
or you find yourself sacrificing， some principles that might surprise you。
But what is it you're discovering？ What principle-based decisions are you making or not making？
Another is what alternatives could you create？ Would you create if you could？
We forced you into very stark choice。 Left or right？ Binary。 A or B。 Of course。
life is rarely binary。 In fact， we think one of the best ways to navigate ethical dilemmas is to come up with。
to call out these false dichotomies。 In fact， there's a C option here。 There's a third way。
So one of the things you should be thinking about as you go through here is what would。
be a third way？ What would be， if you're uncomfortable， as many of you will be。
with the two choices given， what would be a third way to resolve the question？ And then finally。
watch for the kinds of rationalizations that banagi at all， the article we just talked， about。
warn us about。 Many people， as they talk about why they would choose one over the other。
find themselves， saying the kinds of things that banagi at all report from their research and psychology。
And that should always be a little bit of a warning sign to us。 Okay。
Let's go through these questions。 We're going to take them through 10。
You saw them in a random order。 We're going to give you 10。 And then I'll share the results。
The data I have here are from a broad representative sample of the adult population in the United。
States。 Something like 200 people have taken this survey and will share those results with you。
First question， you're in a senior position on a project team and a junior member of the。
team has family ties to the CEO of your client。 You would like to influence the CEO in the matter that would be helpful to the success。
of the project。 You can use your senior position to， quote。
"ask" the junior associate to use their connection。
to help knowing this would be unpleasant for the junior associate。 Do you， A。
ask the junior colleague for help or not ask the junior colleague for help？
So in each of these questions， we're going to code one of the two alternatives as the。
pragmatic choice and the other as the idealistic choice。 And it's not a perfect distinction。
There's a little bit of overlap in some of them。 But broadly。
we can call one of them the pragmatic choice， one of them the idealistic choice。
You should keep track as you go through on how many pragmatic choices you make。
We'll show you the distribution at the end of from zero to ten， how many pragmatic choices。
people make when they take the survey。 So in this case， asking the junior colleague for help。
we're going to code that as pragmatic， not asking the junior colleague for help。
we're going to code as idealistic。 What did people tell us？ Well， in our broad survey。
we had 73% of our population not as the junior colleague for， help。
So we had 27% made the pragmatic choice in this situation。
Number two， there is a major meeting next week where several key stakeholders will come together。
to vote on a policy for which you've been advocating the past several months。
The leader of the opposition is flying in from across the country just in time to attend。
the meeting。 As you prepare your presentation， you realize there is one voter you've not seen in a long。
time who you believe is undecided。 You can， by merely reflecting on her priorities。
incorporate her perspective into your presentation， to try to influence her vote。 On the other hand。
you could try to influence her directly by inviting her to breakfast。
to catch up informally and share your pitch before the formal vote。
You would be scheduling this breakfast just when the stakeholder lands， the leader of。
your opposition would not have time to hold a similar meeting。 So do you， A。
incorporate the stakeholder's perspective into your presentation？ Or B。
invite the stakeholder to breakfast before the vote？
We're going to code the first of these as the idealistic and the second as the pragmatic。 This。
as you may see， ties into our discussion on coalitions and the meeting before the meeting。
What do we see from our sample？ 60% incorporate the perspective from the presentation and 40% do the breakfast。
So we have 40% taking the pragmatic option and the majority is saying with the idealistic。
Question three， you spent the summer interning at a competitive firm and received a full-time。
job offer at the end of the summer。 However， the salary they offer does not meet your expectations despite using benchmarks。
and other arguments in your salary negotiation。 You are unable to persuade the firm to increase their offer to meet your compensation expectations。
You feel that coming forward with a higher offer from a competing company would likely。
sway their decision。 But this would require interviewing with another company and in the process likely misrepresenting。
your true interest in the second company and wasting their resources。
You know that you would not take the offer if you would receive one from the second company。
So do you A) interview with the second company or B) not interview with the second company？
We consider the first of these the pragmatic option and the second the idealistic。
What does our sample say？ 48% of our sample would interview with the second company。
48% take the pragmatic choice。 Question four， your boss asks you to run a report for the top leaders of your firm to evaluate。
the effectiveness of a recent project you spearheaded。
You know that a promotion for both you and your boss are likely if the analysis shows。
positive results。 In addition， you are also likely to save a few hundred jobs from layoffs across your firm。
While doing your analysis， you observe that the results look stronger if compared to a。
baseline of the prior three years instead of the past five years。
You can make an argument for using the former though you know using the full five years is。
technically a more valid comparison。 Do you A) show the analysis using only three years of past data or B) show the analysis using。
the full five years of past data available。 And here we show 45% of our sample choosing to use only the previous three years whereas。
55% come in using the full five years。 I want to underscore here where four questions into a 10 question test but I want to underscore。
that we don't believe there are right answers to this question and the point is not to grade。
performance as right and wrong。 It's merely to code the inclination to use these influence tactics we've been talking。
about throughout the course。 So the need for it， the trade-offs will vary across situations。
We're just pushing you to think this through and see where you lie and more importantly。
on what principles you rest。 What principles are driving your decisions。
So let's keep going but you should be doing two things， three things。
You should be adding up the number of pragmatic choices you're making， zero to ten。
You should be thinking about what principles you're leaning on as you make these choices。 And third。
you should be thinking about third ways。 We're forcing you to make dichotomous choices。
What if there was a third alternative？ What could you come up with？
What creative alternative could you come up with that might resolve this ethical dilemma。
if you feel there is one？ Okay。 Fifth question。 If you use a third party for help on a critical task due to a misunderstanding a lot of money。
was lost in a transaction but it is ambiguous whether you or the third party is a fault。
Your company is an important client of the third party and as such you have the ability。
to blame them entirely requiring them to refund the money。 Alternatively。
you could accept part of the blame which would damage your reputation。
Do you A) force the third party to accept the blame or B) accept shared blame？
So we're going to call the first choice the forcing the pragmatic and the second accepting。
shared blame the idealistic。
And this taps into this notion of might。 You have authority here。 You can use it if you want to。
In our sample we find that a minority only 14% force the third party to accept the blame。
86% accept shared blame。 Question six。 You worked in investment management and your firm has been chasing one high net worth。
individual who would be the single biggest account your firm has ever secured。
For months of trying to win this person over she mentions her son is looking for a job。
in investment management and ask if there are openings in your firm for her son。
You review her son's application materials and it is clear he does not meet the academic。
and professional standards typical of your hiring practices。
Hiring him however will make it likely you secure her as a new account。
Do you A) make the potential client's son an offer of employment or B) not make the potential。
client's son an offer of employment where A) is the pragmatic choice and B) we're coding。
it as the more idealistic choice。
What does our samples say？ Our sample says 29% to make the son an offer with 71% coming in not making the offer for。
going the opportunity for that particular client。 I believe this is question seven。
It is early in a job or career you may sometimes feel the need to downplay your inexperience。
in an effort to establish credibility。 This is especially true in jobs where you regularly interact with clients or beneficiaries。
You are in this scenario six months into a new job walking into your first meeting with， the client。
Your first meeting with this client the client asks for your professional background。
Do you A) own up to your youth knowing it will make it hard to gain their trust or B)。
embellish your experience。 We're going to code this second embellishing as the pragmatic choice and A) as the idealistic。
70% of our sample went with the idealistic owning up to the youth with 30% choosing to。
embellishing their experience。 Question eight you are working on a startup and you have an important pitch in a few days。
with your first potential investor。 As the representatives of the investor make their decision about whether to invest in。
your company you know they'll ask if you have any other investors already committed。
If you say you do not it will severely hurt your chances of securing this investment。
Do you A) imply you have other investors already committed or B) acknowledge you do not have。
other investors。 We're going to code the first the implying as pragmatic and the second the acknowledging。
is idealistic。 35% of our national sample said that they would imply they already have investors committed。
with 65 saying they would acknowledge they don't have other investors。
So again what's your tally so far we've got a couple left but more importantly what principles。
are you finding。 What are you leaning on as you went through these decisions to decide which way to go。
What principles are you stepping over or compromising are you finding that don't quite。
matter as much。 And are you thinking creatively about what other choice you might make if you had the。
freedom to do so。 Okay question nine you recently found out that a senior manager at your firm just relocated。
to your town and is also a huge fan of your favorite sports team。
You're excited to learn this as you think it could be a key lever to build your relationship。
with him while you have heard negative things about the senior manager he is difficult to。
work with and does not treat junior team members very well。
You think the sports connection could be a platform to build a relationship to help propel。
your career。 You are only interested in this relationship from a professional perspective。
You realize the senior manager is new to the area and is eager to build personal relationships。
He would not know your motives for building the relationship are purely professional。
Do you A) build a relationship and help your career or B) do not build a relationship。
In this case we had 75% of our samples saying that they would do the pragmatic thing which。
is building a relationship and helping your career and 25 choosing the idealistic option。
do not build a relationship。
Finally question 10 you just started a new job as a product manager。
Throughout your career you have learned how valuable building a wide professional network。
is as well as the importance of building personal relationships with your professional contacts。
This is especially important in a product manager role as part of your responsibilities are to。
connect disparate parts of the organization。 One of your most critical stakeholders routinely insults team members behind their backs。
He is also a bigot who is known to use awful slurs and disparaging and disparages others。
However due to his position in your new company securing his buy-in will be critical to your。
success。 This individual has taken a liking to you and asked you to grab a drink after work this。
afternoon。 You anticipate he will try to bond with you by disparaging others which makes you uncomfortable。
You are also worried that your colleagues will resent you for getting a drink with him。
Do you grab a drink a) that is the pragmatic choice or b) more idealistically decline to。
grab a drink。 Our sample goes 33% with the drink and 67% with declining to grab a drink。
Those are the 10 questions that creates a scale of sorts a pragmatism scale or perhaps。
an expedience scale to which there is not a right answer or an ideal place。
But we hope that by going through those questions you start discovering what principles are most。
important to you and start cultivating the practice of asking what are third ways when。
you face these kind of false dichotomies。 Let's give you some context for your score。
We ask you to keep score as you go through 0-10 for the number of pragmatic choices you， have。
Here is how that looks for our nationally representative sample of adults here in the， US。
The mean in that sample was 3。7。 With a pretty high standard deviation so quite a bit of variance and you can see the variance。
in the graph there。 The peak， the mode was 2 followed quickly by 3 but you can see that there is quite a bit。
of range there in the middle anywhere from 1-6。 Quite a bit of disparity but 1-6 but definitely on the more idealistic side of this scale。
Now this varies by situation， it varies by population， we have conducted surveys like。
this with our MBA population， our executive MBA。 In fact we have used this exact survey with a recent group of MBAs and we can give you。
that as well。 This is a smaller sample but it's notable because it is so different。
So here's what our MBAs say。 This is a large MBA program， a sample of 91 where the mean is 6。
Our standard deviation， so a little less variance， much higher mean。
We still see kind of the full range from 2 from only 2 of the 10 up to 10 and not much。
on 10 but we see a shift here from the nationally representative sample to this large MBA program。
indicating that there are some differences here。 Different preferences， perhaps different training。
We're not entirely sure yet where the differences come from but it's important to place yourself。
into this distribution and ask is this where you want to be。 Whether it's high， whether it's low。
whether it's in the middle， whether it's typical of， the population or not。
are you comfortable with where you are on that？ And are you comfortable with how you got there？
Are you comfortable with the principles you used to get there？
We'll end this section with a quote from Boardwalk Empire。
This was the final scene of season one where the lead character says we all have to decide。
for ourselves how much sin we can live with。 It's a little dramatic for this。
we're not really talking sin here but the theme of this。
particular lecture is deciding for yourself where you want to fit on things like that。
distribution for pragmatism。 [ Silence ]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P107：43_关于原则.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
In the last lecture， we pushed you to think about the principles that were guiding your。
decisions as we went through the hard question survey。
Let's take a moment and talk a little bit more about principles before we push into the final。
section on some frameworks and some prescriptions for ethics。
So principles are abstract ideas that govern behavior across situations。
They are useful in providing direction and guidance in your decision making。
They can be a source of utility in and of themselves。 They can be a source of respect from others。
But they also constrain your choices。 And this is the trade-off that we really want to push on here for a little bit。
And again， this is something that we've been talking about often on directly and indirectly。
since the beginning of the course。 So we're just kind of laying things out a little more explicitly this time around。
I want to begin with a quote from Otto von Bismarck from Chris Clark's book on the Iron， Kingdom。
The History of Germany。 Bismarck gets credit for unifying Germany。
This is a little bit of an exaggeration， but he was the most important politician there。
in the late 19th century and was hugely influential in bringing it together as a country。
Bismarck disparaged theory in principle as yardsticks for political life。
The result was the freedom from ideological constraints that made his behavior unpredictable。
One could call it realism， pragmatism or opportunism and ability to spring from one。
camp to another wrong footing his opponents。 He said。
"If I am to proceed through life on the basis of principles， it is as if I。
were to walk down a narrow path in the woods with a long pole in my mouth。"。
This is how Bismarck felt about principles。 He clearly didn't have much room for them and he believed he gained some political advantage。
by kind of putting him on the back burner。 So we're asking you to think a little bit about what role principles play in your life。
and what principles are guiding your behavior。 We've had this discussion with classrooms over the last couple of years and we end up with。
interesting collections。 So consider the question， "What principles would you like to live by？
What principles do you want to guide your behavior？"。
This is what one board looked like after one discussion。
These are full-time MBAs and if you can work through my chicken scratch you see they came。
up with things like honesty， integrity， reliability， equality， loyalty， respect， optimism。
development， modesty， kindness， balance， fun， authenticity。 This is a big list。
This is something like 20， 25 principles。 Any one of which would be hard to argue with and you might be reaffirmed in your faith in。
MBAs to see such a list。 But I'll ask you， what would happen if you tried to live by all those principles？
Any one of them would be defendable but if you tried to live by all of them at the same， time。
could you act at all？ Did you make any decisions？ This is the constraining aspect of principles as well。
If you really want to honor a principle， it constrains you in some way。 In fact。
it's just cheap talk until it constrains you。 So let's acknowledge that you're not going to be able to live by all your principles all。
the time and I think by this point in the course you've seen that to exercise influence。
in big challenging situations you probably will have to compromise in principles。
And precisely because you have to compromise in principles we want you to be thoughtful。
about those principles you don't want to compromise。
To know what your fundamental principles are that you want to prioritize above all else。
so that when the pressure comes you don't compromise those。
That's what we're pushing you to think about right now。 So what is worth fighting for？
What is not worth fighting for？ Let's just be a little bit more explicit about it than we usually are。
Let's acknowledge the tradeoff and be a little bit more explicit about it。 Effectiveness。
political effectiveness， influence often requires flexibility and compromise。 Idealism is costly。
So DeMello for example would never have repatriated 400，000 Cambodian refugees if he hadn't been。
willing to sit down with the Khmer Rouge。 Some of the worst people in the history of the world but he was able to sit down with。
him， was willing to sit down with him， was not too idealistic to sit down with him。
And as a result was able to bring hundreds of thousands of Cambodians back home。 On the other hand。
to be without principles or to have them moved around by external forces。
too easily invites trouble。 The suggestion is you need to know which lines you will not cross。
what principles you will， not sacrifice， what your principle hierarchy actually is。
So we're pushing you right now to think some about that to articulate it and in the next。
lecture we'll move toward a framework for ethical use of these influence tactics。 [ Silence ]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P108：44_伦理框架.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
In this last lecture on ethics， we want to talk more explicitly about frameworks and。
we're pushing you to articulate your own framework。 But let's begin with our motivation。
which is recognizing there's a downside to using， influence but also there's a downside to not using influence。
You can't avoid the ethical dilemmas by merely opting out of trying to influence things。
You have to keep in mind your goals， why it is you want to exercise influence at all。
It could be for personal goals but it also could be for family， for friends， for organizations。
those you work with， the broader community， public policy。
You have lots of goals and motivations for exercising influence。
So merely stepping away is not a good way to navigate it。 Not trying is not a good option。
So what are your prescriptions？ What principles do you hold most dearly？
The idea in this section is to articulate an ethical framework that will help buttress。
you against the world's pressure。 The world's kind of trying to drag you down here and the more you are called on to use。
influence， the more you're going to have to navigate these ethical dilemmas。
So what principles are you not willing to violate？ What is your hierarchy？
What is a framework you can use to help make sure you don't fall into traps as you exercise。
influence？ So we're going to share a few examples from other people。
These frameworks that you should adopt hold cloth but they're examples that might inspire。
your constructing your own。 So Marcus Aurelius for example。
his philosophy that we've kind of broken out into a checklist。
here is never regard something is doing you good if it makes you betray a trust， lose your。
sense of shame or makes you show hatred， suspicion， ill will， hypocrisy or desire for。
things best done behind closed doors。 So a pretty high standard there with a list of six。
seven items that might provide a checklist， for you。
And this shows the particular principles that Marcus Aurelius held dearest and this would。
constrain， clearly constrain some of your behavior。 It's an example framework。
Richard Schell who is also doing a course in this sequence in his book on negotiation。
he says those who value personal integrity。 They do what they negotiate consistently using a thoughtful set of personal values that。
they could if necessary explain and defend to others。
Note here that Richard is not telling anybody what those value should be。
He's not even here arguing high or low。 He's merely saying you'd be consistent。
you'd be thoughtful and if necessary you could explain。
and defend those behaviors and those actions to other people。
Another colleague of mine here at Wharton， Oscar Nakahara gave me a checklist once over。
a breakfast conversation。 He grew up in industry and had to navigate many of these challenges over his career。
He said， "Well， one criteria is front page of the Wall Street Journal。
How would you feel if this behavior was written about there？
Another is how would I feel about being on the other side of this， kind of in the other。
person's shoes。 A third is what would you do if you had to make this decision 10 more times。
say every， day for a week or what about 100 more times？
Would you always be willing to take this pragmatic step across this principle if you had to do。
it repeatedly？"， Then finally， what's the long term consequence versus short term？
Is it better or worse if you take this action？ An interesting thoughtful list from Oscar。
Then finally， I want to suggest my own and this isn't because I'm selling mine in any。
means by any means but I want to give you another sample and push you to develop something。
like this for yourself。 I'm going to give you it in two sections。 One are absolute。
These are things that I believe are important and could be adopted because I think they're。
well grounded。 Know your bias， talk about your decisions with others and look for third ways。
Then finally， a section that are more personal choices but examples of things you might consider。
Having high standards for honesty， striving for consistency and playing for the long term。
Let's just talk about each of these briefly as we go through。 First， know you are inevitably biased。
This goes back to the article we started this half lecture with。 The Banaji et al。
Harvard Business Review。 How ethical or how unethical are you。
One of the things they first talked about is David Armour's work on the illusion of objectivity。
We tend to believe we are the objective ones in these situations that others might be biased。
We're not biased。 That's a real problem because it can't be that everybody is correct about being the objective。
ones。 This calls for emotional distance， outside perspectives。
environmental and institutional design， meaning， you don't put yourself in situations that will bring up these dilemmas or you surround。
yourself by protections of some kind or warning flags。
You build environments that are more conducive to good decision making。
These are the kinds of things you do if you know that you're biased。
These are the kinds of things you have to think you don't need if you believe you're not biased。
And I asked him as a quote here， a good quote that captures some of what we're talking， about here。
We don't see the world as it is。 We see it as we are。
This is exactly the opposite of what Armour finds in his research。
People believe they see the world as it is and everyone else is wrong。
And then the writer knew better。 She said， "We don't see the world as it is。
We see the world as we are。"， Number two， discuss your decisions with others。
This is an important and frankly easy check on your biases。
This is one of the easiest prescriptions you can follow。
It was merely talk about things with other people。
It's a pretty bad sign if you're considering a course of action that you don't want to。
talk about with other people。 And one of the details here is that the more different the background。
the better。 It's not as helpful to talk about a challenging situation with a bunch of people who have。
the same background as you， the same interest as you， the same training as you。
They're not apt to bring a much of new perspective。 But if you can get outside of that bubble。
talk about it with people who might think about， it differently。
It's going to be a more robust check on the rightness of your action。 And Obama。
in talking about putting together multinational alliances， put it this way， he， said。
"In these situations， we should have a bias towards operating multilaterally， as。
opposed to unilaterally。"， Because the very process of building a coalition forces you to ask tough questions。
You may think you're acting morally， but you may be fooling yourself。
You can't fool yourself if you have to convince other people to come onto your side。
You really can't fool yourself if you talk about these decisions with other people。 Okay， finally。
in the absolute category， these are things I do firmly believe in is the third， way。
As we went through the hard question survey， this is not， life is not a movie。
There are ways to be both effective and maintain integrity。
Too often when we read the books or see the movies or watch TV， characters get painted， as。
you know， all good or all bad or effective， but evil and ineffective， but a good person。
That's not the way real life is。 Even if these things are kind of correlated。
there are ways to be effective and maintain， integrity。 It may be rare and demanding。
but that doesn't mean it can't be done。 One of the things you need to help you along your way is to be vigilant。
for example。 It's helpful in life to have flesh and blood demonstrations。
You carry around in your head of people who are living the way you want to live。
People who have navigated difficult situations in a way that you would be happy to navigate。
So difficult situations。 So we need to keep our eyes open for these examples。
but generally we need to cultivate， the inclination to look for third ways。
to not settle for these false dichotomies， to bring， some creativity into our ethical dilemmas。
Okay， three more from a category of consider this。
These are more personal but things to be considered。 They're at the very least examples of things。
examples of ways of thinking about it that， you might use as you pull together your own framework。
The first of these is have high standards for honesty。 It impacts not only what you say。
but what you do。 It is similar at the individual level as transparency is at the organization level。
An organization which lives by transparency。 They're going to share， for example。
with their employees salary information， performance， evaluations。
the reasoning behind their decisions。 You might think about that as having all these downstream consequences。
Once they do that sharing， people act differently。
But the interesting bit is that it also has upstream consequences。
If you know you're going to be that transparent or at the individual level， if you know you're。
always going to be honest， you're not going to lie， it's not just that it has downstream。
consequences。 It changes your behavior upstream。 If you know you're going to have to tell your spouse that you did this thing。
well， you're， probably not going to do it。 Are you going to act differently？
Or you're going to think about it more thoroughly at the very least。
It raises the bar and it removes cover that might lead you to take some bad decisions。
As much of that as you can bake into your life， probably the better off you're going， to be。 Again。
this goes back to Richard Schills。 Are you willing to defend it in front of somebody？
It's not saying what you should do。 It's just that you shouldn't be doing things that you're not willing to defend in front。
of people。 Second， in this category， how consistent is your behavior？
We might judge and act by considering in how many of our social circles would be comfortable。
discussing it。 One way we lose our way ethically is that we fall into an organization or an industry。
that has a certain set of norms and there's nobody in that industry or in that company。
or in that group that challenges those norms and you begin to think that all that behavior。
is normal。 You're willing to talk about it outside of your social circle。
If you're willing to be consistent， not just act one way here in a different way in a different。
social circle， it's going to provide a check for you。
We also know that there are psychological consequences to having that kind of compartmentalization。
There's a toll it takes if you're acting so differently across your domains。 Finally。
consider the trade-off between short-term and long-term。
It is often the case that the harder path to take is the one that is better in the longer， term。
Now， the challenge here is that we're not guaranteed to be around in the long term。
We don't know what the long term is。 There's a lot of uncertainty。 You may make the long-term play。
You might make the wise move for the long strategy and then never make it all the way。
of the long strategy。 We have to have our eyes open about that。
But if we want you to have not only influence but sustainable influence that typically calls。
for play in for the long term， not being short term， not being expedient， sometimes sacrificing。
gains in the short term in order to build that longer term influence， we're not interested。
in short-term influence in most situations。 What we're trying to help you do is build long-term sustainable influence。
Thank you。 [end of transcript]， [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P109：45_地位心理学.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Most of this course has been about how to build your power and influence。
And we want to give you the tools to do that， to equip you to accomplish whatever goals。
you're trying to accomplish。 But we would be remissed in the course without talking about the downside of having power。
At this point we've seen a lot of research， especially recently in psychology， on the， downside。
the interpersonal consequences of having power and status。
And so for the next few lectures we want to talk a little bit about those downsides。
One of the beginning with an anecdote from Nell Minow for a period of time was the head。
of institutional shareholder services。 And when she took that over from the previous CEO on the day he left。
she said the president， told her， "Watch how funny your jokes get。"， And she says。
"I must think about that three or four times a week， not because I'm telling。
a joke and people are laughing， but because I need to remind myself constantly of the。
challenge that gets tougher and tougher as you get higher in the organization to get。
people to be honest with you。"， This is the reality of status that people respond differently to you。
And it's not even necessarily a strategic choice。 It's an automatic。
intrinsic change in our behavior in the presence of status。 And as we'll see。
there are automatic and intrinsic changes in our own behavior as we， achieve status。
So that's the reason I want to start with this example because it's jokes and humor as something。
as basic as that is influenced by whether a person has status or not。
Another quote that gets at it from Elaine DeBittan who says， "Love is people being nice。
to you because they like you。 Power is then being nice to you even though they might hate you。
This is what you're facing。 And on one level， maybe this is a good thing， right？
You'd rather have people who even if they hate you or are nice to you， on the other hand。
you're going to change if this is the way you interact with the world。
And you're also going to be closed off to important sources of information and relationships。
if this is how people treat you。 So it's hard to navigate that。
We want to give you some more tools for navigating it。
Some sociologists note that the chief danger of status is that of suppressing personal development。
and so of causing social infibrillment， rigidity and ultimate decay， this sounds awful。 I mean。
we've been trying to get you status the entire course。 And here at the end we're saying， "Well。
you're welcome。 This is what you're going to have， personal， social and fibrillment。
So we want to avoid that。 And it's hard to avoid。 So we're going to hit it pretty hard here and talk about what we've learned from social。
psychology。 We're going to use a review paper in 2003 by Doc Keltner and a couple of his colleagues。
on the determinants of power。 But really we want to jump to the end。
We want to talk about the social consequences of power。 So let me just unpack those for you。
This research has been done in the lab and outside of the lab。
Very often they are running experiments。 Just Keltner is just one of the researchers in this area。
but one of the most prominent。 But the people working in this field。
they run experiments where they manipulate whether。
a person is in a high power situation or a low power situation so they can really isolate。
the impact of power directly。 Some of the studies are field studies where they just assess。
They determine independently whether someone is in a high power or low power situation。
So what they have found， let's run through a quick summary here， elevated power increases。
and reduced power increases。 The experience and expression of positive affect whereas reduced power increases the。
experience and expression of negative affect。 So power is making people happier and facilitates the expression of that happiness and vice。
versa for reduced power。 Elevated power increases sensitivity to rewards where reduced power increases sensitivity。
to threat and punishment。 So you can imagine this has direct consequences for how people act。
If one is only focused on the upside that might lead for example to more risk taking。
If one is disproportionately focused on the downside， the threats and the punishment， that's。
going to lead to a great deal of risk aversion。 For example。
elevated power increases the tendency to construe others as a means to。
an end where reduced power increases the tendency to see yourself as means of somebody else's， end。
So kind of profound psychological shifts as we increase power or have our power reduced。
Elevated power increases automatic social cognition。 This is for example the use of stereotypes。
It's reasoning about people kind of top down from our schemas， from our stereotypes， from。
our categories， reasoning down to the individuals whereas reduced power increases controlled。
social cognition。 So it's reasoning up from the details of the situation。
So for example they have studied this and looking at applicants to a school or to a committee。
and they've coded how people reason about those applicants and when they're induced to。
be in a high power situation they're more apt to use these social categories and stereotypes。
as a reason about the applicants。 Power increases approach related behavior whereas reduced power increases behavioral。
inhibition。 So what is approach related behavior？ This can be attitudes and behavior on food。
physical space， verbal and nonverbal sex。 Sex in these studies is usually some kind of flirtatious behavior。
But for example people use physical space very differently when they are in high power situations。
than when they're in low。 In the classroom we ask people， okay give us a little demonstration。
But as people would sit if they had low power and you see a whole classroom of kids they。
get all scrum stuff like this and they bend over and then you say okay alternatively sit。
as you would if you're really feeling powerful。 And people start leaning back and spreading out and invariably somebody would put their。
feet up on the desk。 There'll be knocking other people stuff out of the way。
And this is what's been， this is what's been observed in field settings and in experimental。
settings people take up space very differently when they're feeling high power or they're。
feeling low power and this is connected to this idea of approach related behavior versus。
behavioral inhibition。 When you have， when you're in a high power situation you're more approach related。
People when they have higher power the experience of power increases consistent and coherent。
social behavior whereas reduced power increases situationally contingent behavior。
That means when you're feeling more powerful you're more the same across a wide range of。
situations than when you're not feeling powerful。 When you're not feeling powerful you're completely pushed around by the situation。
Your situation， your behavior is situationally contingent。
So as we get to this point on the slide you begin to realize these consequences aren't。
all bad right。 Because who do you want to be？ Do you want to be the person who is the same in every situation or do you want to be the。
person who gets pushed around by all these various situations。
Love truthfully you probably need to be somewhere in the middle。
We've all had friends or colleagues or bosses who were a little bit too much the same person。
in all situations。 They probably could have tailored it a little bit better to the situation。
On the other hand you don't want to be someone who is completely malleable by the situation。
So it begins giving us a sense that some of this power leads to behavior that is good。
and probably advantageous to us。 Too much of it leads to behavior that can be damaging to us。
Finally， the elevated power increases the likelihood of socially inappropriate behavior。
So for example interrupting， speaking out of turn， impolite eating。
So in the lab they've gone as far as coding the code things like how often people talk， over people。
They code things like how much they chew with their mouth open， how many crumbs fall when， they eat。
They've gotten very precise and the results are always in the same direction that increased。
power leads to these socially inappropriate behaviors。
So more recently Keltoner in his book The Power Paradox finds four themes in this literature。
Four consequences of power。 One is what he calls empathy deficits。
We have a harder time empathizing with other people。
We have a harder time even understanding the emotions they are experiencing when we're。
in high power situations。 We have more self-serving impulsivity。
You've just seen examples of that in some of the experiments I cited。
We have more incivility and disrespect the talking over， the demands， the bad language。
the criticism。 And we have what he calls narratives of exceptionalism。
We are amazingly resourceful in rationalizing why we deserve。
After all we've accomplished and all the work we've put in to act impossibly unethical。
In fact it's not even unethical because we deserve it。 We're entitled。 We are exceptional。
These are the themes that Keltoner has seen given another 12 or 13 years on his research。
There's even a simpler theme and that is the common thread of disinhibition。
This is one way of making sense of all the behaviors that we've just talked about。
Increased power leads to acting on desires in a social context without concern for social。
consequences。 So again some of this is probably a good thing right？
It's the problem of having too much。 It's the problem of a little power is good but a lot of power feeling the status becomes。
a bad thing。 I would probably wish for most of my friends and students a little less inhibition。
A little more disinhibition until they have too much。
So what we see is power leads people to be more reward focused， more sensitive to their。
internal states， reduce sensitivity to other people's needs， more action orientation in。
general being more instrumental。 All of this comes from being more disinhibited。
To be even a little bit more provocative and underscore this disinhibition idea some colleagues。
Hirsch， Kielinski and Jean studied disinhibition in a few different ways and they found that。
the way people act when they are in powerful situations is related to the way they act when。
they're in anonymous situations or when they're drunk。
Power， alcohol， anonymity all lead to disinhibition and it starts helping us understand the connections。
and the consequences of feeling a little bit too much this status idea。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P11：10_我们在哪里,我们要去哪里.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So let's take a moment and wrap up where we are and take a look at where we're going。
next。 You've begun your exploration of your own success values。
You took a look at the six lives and tried to decide which ones you thought were most。
really successful。 Began to see that inside each of those lives there was a balance between the outer life。
of status and achievement and career and the inner life of happiness， satisfaction， love， family。
and where those two parts are meeting and integrating or whether they're separated。
And then we looked at the origins of some of those values in your own cultural understanding。
the family values that you were raised on， perhaps a spiritual or religious values that。
you've inherited。 And begun to see that there's a moment where you get to stand and examine those values。
decide where you stand with respect to them， do you embrace them， do you need to modify， them。
do you need to reject some part of them in order for you to make progress on your， own journey。
Where we're going to go next is to look at in a little more detail what are the individual。
ways that you can begin seeing yourself as a success capable individual that are not looking。
out and comparing yourself to others and saying， "Oh， I'm a failure with respect to that person。
or I'm not as good as this role model I have， I'm a failure。"， But to look inside and see， "Okay。
where do I stand today？ Where do I want to invest to make progress for tomorrow and build on the solid foundation。
of your capabilities and your interests？"， So I'll see you in the next session。 Bye。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P110：46_典型案例.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
One of the fun/tragic aspects of teaching this topic is that there's never any shortage。
of examples。 And in recent years， we've had a rash of bad behavior from high status individuals。
So taking a quote here from Tierney Lab in New York Times publication a few years ago。
when Mark Sanford and John Insign ran into some trouble politicians。 Sanford and Insign。
Nicholas Wade writes， "Polititions are primates too。"， He says。
"The recent travails of Senator John Insign and Mark Sanford are another reminder。
of how very unfairly from a primatological point of view we treat our politicians。
A young male champ spends almost every waking hour plotting how to ascend the hierarchy。
of his society。 If he makes it to the top， he has reached a height from which one cannot easily descend。
Champs leave the alpha position when deposed and usually killed by their successor。
So why take such a risk？ For the sex， of course， political power still means sexual opportunity。
The trouble is many politicians don't seem fully aware of the subconscious urges that。
contribute to their drive for power。 They spend years climbing the greasy pole。
come at last within reach of the juicy fruit that， is their ancient primate reward。
and then get their hand slapped for touching。 It's just unfair。
like yanking away a rash reward after it has run its maze。"。
So Sanford and Insign， but we can keep on going down the list。 Elliot Spitzer， similar。
just added a little hypocrisy to give extra flavor。 Tiger Woods。
one of the more prominent examples from the sporting world， ran into some major。
miracle issues that have contributed to the premature end of his competitive golf game。
When he came out of therapy after having had issues in his marriage， he said something。
that could have come straight out of the social psychology textbooks。
He says， "I stopped living by the core values I was taught to believe in。
I knew my actions were wrong， but I convinced myself that normal rules didn't apply。
I never thought about who I was hurting。 Instead， I thought only about myself。
I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by。
I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to。
I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations， around me。
I felt I was entitled。 Thanks to money and fame， I didn't have to go far to find them。"。
So Woods found his trouble with marital infidelity， but that rationale is the rationale underlying。
many status-driven violations that we see by people who have had power and become accustomed。
to power。 One last one， an ancient example， just to underscore how long this has been going on。
and how it affects even very accomplished people， very worthy people。 Michelangelo is David here。
but of course we're talking about David of the Old Testament。
Let's refresh on David。 So if you don't know anything about David。
you probably know the story of David and Goliath。 This is when David first entered the world stage as a shepherd boy slaying the giant Goliath。
He went on to write many of the Psalms in the Bible， and he served as king of Israel。
for a very long time。 But he also had this incident with Bathsheba。
Do you remember the story of David and Bathsheba？ So Bathsheba was a woman he fell in love with。
He saw her bathing on the top of the building next to his。 And unfortunately for him， well。
first he invites her to his house。 He has an affair with this woman， and unfortunately for her。
she is married to one of his generals。 So what does David do？
What is the David who writes Psalms and is the just king？ What does he do？
He conspires to have his general killed。 He brings in the rest of his generals。 And he says。
let's go attack the enemy next to us。 Put Bathsheba's husband in the front。
and then when the enemy starts responding， fall， back to have him killed。 And in fact。
these guys did this。 Bathsheba's husband was killed。 So now he can have Bathsheba to himself。
This is David。 This is King David。 King David falling prey to the exact same issues it seems that we've been documenting。
in more recent studies in social psychology。 But people have been grappling with this for millennia。
essentially。 And people who are otherwise as worthy as King David was are as susceptible to it。
So it should be a sobering note for us。 And I want to turn the question to you and ask。
how are you different when you're in， power？ This is a good time to reflect a little bit and think about。
You've probably observed that you act a little bit differently when you're in high power。
situations than in low power situations。 In what way are you different？
So this is something that we sometimes survey our students on。 And I've got a collection here。
And this is truly just a random sample。 This is a random sample of survey responses from our full-time MBAs on ways in which they。
are changed by power。 This is just self-report。 So let's take a look at these。
And you'll see a wide range of them， some of which are echoed in the social psychology。
we've been talking about。 Some of which may be a little bit different。
But you hear people talking about being more extravagant， speaking their mind more freely。
using hard power。 I become more outspoken。 The less power I have， the more I avoid conflict。
These are all honest reflections on the ways people are changed by power。
And these are on average 27-year-olds。 They might have had a little power。
but they are not having the kind of power they have， to will in the next 10 years， 20 years。
30 years。 They haven't had a decade or two decades to adapt to the kind of status that they might。
This is only the beginning of the changes。 This is what we want to stay in touch with。
This is what we want to have our eyes open about。 This is what we worry about whenever we tool you up to develop and cultivate status and。
power， because this is what can trip you up。 This in fact。
these are the seeds power carries the seeds of its own destruction。
Power brings this change and then these changes can undermine your power。
So it's very important that we are honest with ourselves about it， that we admit and。
accept the fact that we are susceptible just as David and Tiger Woods and Elliot Spitzer。
have been susceptible。 And hopefully that we take steps to try to mitigate it。
So in the next section， we'll start talking about some of those steps。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P111：47_你能做什么.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Happily， we do have a bit of advice on how you can try to avoid， you help mitigate the。
impact of these psychological changes that come with status and power。
Rod Kramer is on faculty at Stanford and has spent his career studying those in power。
observing business and government leaders， observing many of the problems that we've。
been talking about， but also some of the ways people navigate those problems。
He comes up with a list of prescriptions that he calls avoiding genius to folly syndrome。
the situation of getting power because you're genius and then losing power because of the。
folly that comes from the status related problems。 His prescriptions are keep your life simple。
hang a lantern on your foibles， float trial， balloons， sweat the small stuff。
reflect more not less and recognize trade-offs。 So these are all actually pretty easy to understand and by themselves might be easy to do。
seems， like that would be easy to do， but you probably find some of them easier than others。
So a question for you， which of these do you think you're already doing？
Which of these kind of come natural to you？ Which do you struggle with？ So for example。
many people that I talk with have trouble with this， hang a lantern on your， foibles。
Are we really supposed to talk about our problems？
Are we really supposed to talk about our mistakes？
This is one of the main prescriptions that Kramer makes。
He finds that those who are able to avoid this genius to folly problem are those who air。
their problems earlier。 They don't try to sweep things under the rug。
They're more okay being imperfect and they expect others to be imperfect and therefore。
it's going to be okay for themselves to be imperfect。 One another way people。
another thing people struggle with is reflecting more not less。 So we're very busy。 People。
very busy society， seemingly busy here all the time。
Kramer finds that those who avoid this problem are folks who step away from the business who。
reflect a little bit on their behaviors who aren't going from one activity to the next。
all the time。 So again， not brain surgery。 Pretty simple。
but some of us have trouble with some of these。 Some of us have trouble with others。
Push you to think a little bit about how you can do more of these， how you can bake more。
of these into your life。 What are you having trouble with already？
If you're 27 and just getting started and already having trouble with some of these issues then。
you're going to have more problems when you pick up more responsibilities and more success。
down the road。 The prescriptions that come from Kramer is to start baking this into your life now to。
kind of inoculate you against trouble you have down the road。 So others have echoed Kramer's advice。
Gary Loveman， CEO of Harrah's Entertainment says the higher your rise in the organization。
the more people are going to tell you that you're right。 His antidote， this is what Loveman says。
He says he regularly and publicly admits mistakes。 He emphasizes the decision process。
prioritizing data and analytics and de-emphasizing who makes， the decisions。
He actively seeks the opinions of outsiders。 This is a great antidote to open yourself to the opinions of outsiders。
especially those， who come from a different place than you。
And encouraging debate among his leaders， among his team and critical self reflection。
within the organization。 So very much in line from this CEO and what Kramer's prescriptions are。
I had an email from an executive MBA student a few years ago about a year after he took， my class。
He wrote， "Watch how funny your jokes get。"， That quote made an impression on me because it began happening once I was promoted。
"I am not a funny person。 I don't pretend to be。 My comedic timing is awful as my wife will clearly attest。
Yet people laugh。 Fascinating。"， I know that as I become successful I can be lured by the temptations of reading my。
own press， so to speak。 The slide I find most important actually is how to avoid genius to folly syndrome。
This rings true。 "Every time my ego runs away with me I make a mistake。
I know this and am constructing ways to integrate those points in my life for the long term。
There is a real need and cannot be overstated。"， Lara Teedens。
another Stanford professor who studies power， says it is this very reflection。
that she's out for in studying this stuff。 She says she sometimes gets accused of being a little evil for studying the roles of hierarchies。
and dominant behavior and for the recommendations she makes。
But in self-defense she says this sorting out behavior is going on between people all the， time。
And the pernicious effects occur because we don't talk about it。
Once it becomes an explicit part of our relationship we have a lot more control over how it plays。
out。 The same thing is going on within ourselves。 If we can be a little bit more honest with ourselves。
if we can name these problems， if， we can be more explicit with those around us about how we are changing or tempted to change。
as a result of power and status， we can take the edge off that risk。
We can inoculate ourselves just a little bit。 One more note from a recent student and one of the more profound examples of people taking。
steps to avoid these problems。 This student writes that Kramer's prescription to "hang a lantern on your foibles" got her。
thinking about one of her old managers who had kept a log of his professional missteps。
for nearly five years。 She says， "What's more， this manager asks his assistant to randomly select one of these。
eras and send it to him in the subject line of an email every day。
When I first heard of this ritual I regarded it as very quirky， if not downright masochistic。
but my manager explained that he had seen too many leaders fall prey to "the power。
paradox" and cease to acknowledge or learn from their eras once they reached the top。 Instead。
my manager was taking steps to constantly remind himself that he too was only mortal。
and prone to mistakes no matter what title level or pay grade he ultimately achieved。
He remarked that arrogance often led to complacency or recklessness and decision-making and vowed。
to do whatever he could to avoid letting you risk it the best of him。
This isn't even one of my students。 We don't know where he picked up this stuff。
but it's an extreme proof of concept。 You can take these ideas very seriously and bake these prescriptions into your life。
This is one of the most baked in examples of a prescription I've ever seen。 Jeff Efre can curse。
Jeff Efre， the organizational psychologist， says， "The combination of diminished vigilance。
and changed circumstances often leads to the loss of power。"， What you have to do。
this is one of Efre's prescriptions， what you have to do is ever。
now then expose yourself to a social circle that really doesn't care about your position。
This is one of the prescriptions that most commonly comes up in my discussion of this。
with students， both MBAs and executive MBAs， is staying in touch with people who they've。
known for years， sometimes decades， staying in touch with people who knew them before。
they had power， before they had influence to keep them grounded and to keep this outside。
perspective。 And then finally， Feferens on this very sober note。
"No matter what the original intentions。
and aspiration， eventually power goes to everyone's head。"， Unfortunately。
this is also the way I feel about the field having studied it and taught。
it for the last 10 years or so。 There is an inevitability。
There does feel to be an inevitability or at least a big mean tendency towards power going。
to everyone's head。 And if we're not willing to acknowledge it。
it only increases the risk that it'll happen， to us。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P112：48_关于地位的总结.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
We're going to close with a bit more from Rod Kramer and his article on avoiding genius。
to follow Syndrome。 So his bottom line is to expect that circumstances will change you。
And in talking about this， he tells a story of an exercise he does with his MBA students。
where he first asks them to write basically like the accolades they receive when they， retire。
What is it you're going to accomplish over the course of your career？
And these being MBAs at a very high profile school， they expect to accomplish great deals。
and so they write these very elaborate lists of accomplishments。 And then he says， "Okay， fine。
great。 Hope you do do that。 But how will attaining all that change you？"。
And he says that they report things like very little or not at all。
They don't expect their core values to change。 They anticipate having to make very few trade-offs to accomplish those things。
And he finds this surprising。 Based on his career of observing people who do accomplish those things。
he thinks this， is naive to say the least。 He says。
"It is as if in finding success they believe they'll become merely bigger and better。
versions of what they are now。"， Kramer includes a line that is probably as good a place to end a lecture on the downside。
of status as I know。 He says， "They can't even imagine that they could ever fall from grace。"。
And that， of course， guarantees that some of them will。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P113：49_有影响力者的七个习惯.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So， I want to wrap up the course with a framework that I'm offering， though it's not the framework。
I think anytime you take a class， you should go through the effort of distilling the key， ideas。
the ideas that are most important for you to carry forward yourself。 So。
I encourage each of you to do that。 At some point in teaching this course。
I decided to do that for myself。 So， as years in， it's now been a few years since I've done it。
but I still like this， framework and I want to suggest it to you as one way of thinking about some of the themes。
in the class。 But again， I want to encourage you to do your own。
I call this seven habits of the influential and I'll unpack each of these in a little bit。
more detail as a way of picking up on some themes we've talked about throughout the class。
The first is pick your spots。 This is a picture of Abraham Lincoln。 Of course。
we could use Lincoln to illustrate any number of the ideas in the class。
But this first habit we're talking about comes from situation awareness。
And this is the idea of using multiple lenses to understand a situation， staying vigilant。
for changes in circumstances， especially changes in risk， uncertainty and importance。
And knowing when to invest and knowing when to let slide。 Basically。
you've got to know when it's okay to stay with the daily routines and when it's。
time to do something different。 Lincoln was a fantastic example of this。
Information awareness is a general set of skills that will help you。
And this habit of picking your spots is one that we see in influential people。 Second habit。
keeping others' interest in mind。 We introduced this fancy term earlier， allocentrism。
This perspective， one being interested in the other people's perspective， the opposite。
of egocentrism。 We could use Robert Moses as an example for any number of our ideas。
But he kind of surprisingly for his forceful a guy as he was， was excellent at allocentrism。
He realized the more you can give others what they want， the more they can afford to give， you。
And this involves keeping not only their ideas but their feelings in mind， this notion of。
pathos。 A third habit， be willing to make trade-offs。
The example we're using here is Sergio de Mello， who was our first example in the course。
And we used him to illustrate again a number of ideas but something we saw in him was intentionality。
He placed a premium on flexibility and adaptability。 Samantha Power。
the author who writes the chapters on de Mello， said that Sergio was ruthlessly， pragmatic。
We carry away from him and other places in the course this idea that if you're not making。
trade-offs， you're not really working toward a goal。 Number four。
the fourth habit of highly influential people。 This is Heidi Royzen， a well-known networker。
Silicon Valley entrepreneur， venture capitalist。 We talked about networks and the habit here is to cultivate relationships before they're。
needed。 This is a way of navigating what many people find squeamish about thinking about networks。
at all as opposed to just thinking about people and relationships。 Well。
one way to fix that because we need you to be strategic in thinking about how you。
allocate your time at some level， one way of navigating that is to be intentional about。
networking but unintentional about relationships。
Training relationships before they're needed is a great way of pulling that off。 Fifth habit。
have the meeting before the meeting。 For me， this really gets to the fact that these are habits。
These are daily ways of living， not complicated， just need to be folded into our routines。
The example here is Jane Jacobs。 This is Jacob sitting in a bar in Greenwich Village where she had the famous showdown with。
Robert Moses there and she built a coalition， gave us a great demonstration of the value。
of coalitions。 A couple of ideas here that come out of that literature in these examples are the more。
disparate the group， the more important， the more valuable it is， the ability to build。
coalitions within the group。 You use these meetings。
these meetings before the meetings for gathering information， taking， temperatures。
laying down groundwork。 These are not love trees。
These are not nice to have。 These are necessary bits to having influence in organizations。
Number six， sixth habit， don't accept circumstances as given。
The picture here is of Jadette Saadik Khan who was a more contemporary transportation， commissioner。
She followed in Moses' footsteps in many ways。 She showed great agency in doing things like getting these pedestrian-only zones in New。
York City。 Here she is sitting in the middle of Broadway。 She shaped situations。
She did not accept situations for what they were。 She didn't accept them as set。
We find in our empirical work that agency is the number one most influential strategy。
Among people we've studied。
Seventh and finally， see the world as it is and how you want it to be。
This is a picture of President Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King， Jr。 strategizing about。
the civil rights legislation that they pushed through in the early 60s。
Civil rights legislation had failed in the U。S。 Congress since Reconstruction。
It had been 75 or 80 years since anything had been done。 Johnson， his president， got that done。
He did it through a rare combination of realism and optimism。 Johnson was famous for sharp elbows。
getting in the mud， the ability to win a street fight。
But he paired that at least at this point in his life。 He paired that with clear-eyed。
inspirational vision of what he wanted to do。 At that point he wanted to advance the civil rights cause。
So the notion here is that you need both。 That realism without ambition is empty。
but ambition without realism is feckless。 We're pushing you to bring these two things together。
We hope that we've tooled you up to be better on the realism side。 More effective。
but we'd like that to be paired with inspiration。 Because again。
the realism without that ambition is empty。
So seven habits and we call them habits because we really do think they're most effective。
as ways of living and they need to be folded into your daily and weekly routines。
These are seven。 I hope that you'll distill some for yourself what you find most meaningful and most useful。
This is just one framework。 One way of thinking about the material we've been talking about。
Our last note for the class is one more shot from a Heberham Lincoln。
This comes from a book written by Doris Carnes Goodwin called "Team of Rivals。"。
It's subsequently made into a movie， at least part of it was made into a movie called "Lincoln。"。
The particular scene， there's a great scene。 You might track it down if you haven't seen it before。
I'm going to quote from it here。 I'm going to quote from the book where it was near the end of the Civil Wars。
This is January 1865。 The Civil War is going to go on a few more months。
but they've been three and a half years into， the Civil War now。
It's also near the end of Lincoln's life。 He'll be assassinated in the same month that the war is over。
They're strategizing at this point on how to pass the 13th Amendment to the Constitution。
which is going to ban slavery。 This has been a long debate in the North。
Lincoln has issued the Emancipation Proclamation， but that was just an executive order essentially。
Now he's trying to codify it in the Constitution forever banning slavery。
He says at one of these meetings in the final hours before they get the vote on this， he。
says to his staffers， to his team， "I am president of the United States。 Close with great power。
The abolition of slavery by constitutional provisions settles the fate for all coming， time。
not only of the millions now in bondage， but of unborn millions to come。
A measure of such importance that those two votes must be procured。
I leave it to you to determine how it shall be done。 But remember。
I am president of the United States。 Close with immense power。
and I expect you to procure those votes。"， What do you make of this quote？ For me。
I'm blown away by here he is with the most noble cause a person can have， more。
right on his side than anybody's ever going to have， and yet he still has to go basically， by votes。
Even with the cause， this just， he still needs influence tactics to accomplish his goal。
The lesson is that being right is not enough。 Being moral is not enough。 Working hard is not enough。
To achieve great things， you'll need a range of tools。 You'll need these tools。
We wish you the best with your work。 We wish you the best with your goals。 Thank you。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P114：50_课程总结.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Welcome back one last time。 I want to give you a quick note on the way out。 First， want。
to thank you for the time。 If you made it this far， you've put a lot of time into this。
and we wish you the best with using these tools in your life。 We don't say much in this course。
about what your goals and objectives should be。 We're assuming you have no bowl and ambitious。
goals and objectives， and we wish you the best with those。 We hope these tools are useful。
along the way， and we wish you the very best in accomplishing them。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
