It is inspiring to realize that in choosing our response to circumstance, we powerfully affect our circumstance. When we change one part of the chemical formula, we change the nature of the results I worked with one organization for several years that was headed by a very dynamic person. He could read trends. He was creative, talented, capable, and brilliant -- and everyone knew it. But he had a very dictatorial style of management. He tended to treat people like "gofers," as if they didn't have any judgment. His manner of speaking to those who worked in the organization was, "Go for this; go for that; now do this; now do that -- I'll make the decisions.

The net effect was that he alienated almost the entire executive team surrounding him. They would gather in the corridors and complain to each other about him. Their discussion was all very sophisticated, very articulate, as if they were trying to help the situation. But they did it endlessly, absolving themselves of responsibility in the name of the president's weaknesses. "You can't imagine what's happened this time," someone would say. "The other day he went into my department. I had everything all laid out. But he came in and gave totally different signals. Everything I'd done for months was shot, just like that. I don't know how I'm supposed to keep working for him. How long will it be until he retires?" "He's only fifty-nine," someone else would respond. "Do you think you can survive for six more years?" "I don't know. He's the kind of person they probably won't retire anyway." But one of the executives was proactive. He was driven by values, not feelings. He took initiative -- he anticipated, he empathized, he read the situation. He was not blind to the president's weaknesses; but instead of criticizing them, he would compensate for them. Where the president was weak in his style, he'd try to buffer his own people and make such weaknesses irrelevant. And he'd work with the president's strengths -- his vision, talent, creativity.

This man focused on his Circle of Influence. He was treated like a gofer, also. But he would do more than what was expected. He anticipated the president's need. He read with empathy the president's underlying concern, so when he presented information, he also gave his analysis and his recommendations based on that analysis.

As I sat one day with the president in an advisory capacity, he said, "Stephen, I just can't believe what this man has done. He's not only given me the information I requested, but he's provided additional information that's exactly what we needed. He even gave me his analysis of it in terms of my deepest concerns, and a list of his recommendations.

"The recommendations are consistent with the analysis, and the analysis is consistent with the data. He's remarkable! What a relief not to have to worry about this part of the business." At the next meeting, it was "go for this" and "go for that" to all the executives but one. To this man, it was "What's your opinion?" His Circle of Influence had grown

This caused quite a stir in the organization. The reactive minds in the executive corridors began shooting their vindictive ammunition at this proactive man. It's the nature of reactive people to absolve themselves of responsibility. It's so much safer to say, "I am not responsible." If I say "I am responsible," I might have to say, "I am irresponsible." It would be very hard for me to say that I have the power to choose my response and that the response I have chosen has resulted in my involvement in a negative, collusive environment, especially if for years I have absolved myself of responsibility for results in the name of someone else's weaknesses. So these executives focused on finding more information, more ammunition, more evidence as to why they weren't responsible.

But this man was proactive toward them, too. Little by little, his Circle of Influence toward them grew also. It continued to expand to the extent that eventually no one made any significant moves in the organization without that man's involvement and approval, including the president. But the president did not feel threatened because this man's strength complemented his strength and compensated for his weaknesses. So he had the strength of two people, a complementary team. This man's success was not dependent on his circumstances. Many others were in the same situation. It was his chosen response to those circumstances, his focus on his Circle of Influence, that made the difference.

There are some people who interpret "proactive" to mean pushy, aggressive, or insensitive; but that isn't the case at all. Proactive people aren't pushy. They're smart, they're value driven, they read reality, and they know what's needed.

Look at Gandhi. While his accusers were in the legislative chambers criticizing him because he wouldn't join in their Circle of Concern rhetoric condemning the British Empire for their subjugation of the Indian people, Gandhi was out in the rice paddies, quietly, slowly, imperceptibly expanding his Circle of Influence with the field laborers. A ground swell of support, of trust, of confidence followed him through the countryside. Though he held no office or political position, through compassion, courage, fasting, and moral persuasion he eventually brought England to its knees, breaking political domination of 300 million people with the power of his greatly expanded Circle of Influence.