Continuing a reinterpretation of Robert Greene’s 1998 landmark, “The 48 Laws of Power”, I turn his Law #4 sideways (applying the law to the fighting of counterfeiting and other forms of fraud) and then turn it upside down (using the laws to create better businesses).

Given the definition of Law #4, need I say more? Actually, the irony is that to argue for saying less, a relatively thorough post is needed. Saying less is an art. One must say enough, often provocatively, to obey the other Laws of Power (commanding attention, generating mystery, etc.), but not say too much to appear common. Not only is it an art, but it is also the secret of art. Why did Klein pick (and try to patent) the hue of blue known as Klein Blue? Why did Marcel Duchamp “pick” a urinal for his show? Certainly, neither of them was about to tell. What could be more common than a single element in a palette or a single stall in a men’s room? By saying less than necessary, Klein and Duchamp succeeded where many others fail.

What does it mean? Let the other person decide...

Robert Greene interprets the fourth Law of Power as the power to be vague, open-ended, and sphinx-like. Can such ambiguity be achieved through idiocy? Think of Peter Seller’s character in “Being There,” whose sagacity is certified by his oracle-like “I like to watch” and “I can’t read.” Far better to say less—“I like to sit on my fat derriere watching TV” and “I am illiterate” are unlikely to generate a dedicated followership.

My interpretation of Robert Greene’s sense of this law comes from the field of dietary restriction (I have done research in this area in a past life: see for example Ferguson VL, Greenberg AR, Bateman TA, Ayers RA, Simske SJ:  Effect of age and dietary restriction without nutritional supplementation on whole bone structural properties in C57BL/6J mice.  Biomed Sci Instrum 35:85-91, 1999). Essentially, food and words are death. The human body is designed to cycle only so many calories—say 80-100 million—in a lifetime. Caloric restriction—willingly reducing your caloric intake—will in general lead to a longer life. The same is true of words. Your power base will only survive so many words. The more apt you are to offer free advice and speak your mind, the shorter your lifespan of power will be. We all love to deliver a witty phrase—we’re light at ease after a litotes, literate through alliteration, happy through hyperbole—but few of us are as clever as we think. And each beautiful flower of true bon mot will be lost in the forest of cliché if we choose the road of sarcasm, cynicism and attack.

Greene cites Louis XIV as following Law #4 to the letter: “L’état, ç’est moi” and the smile of Buddha. So much more effective for a long and unchallenged reign than, for example, Coriolanus, whose spite and common complaining took him from hero to zero, from warrior to weary-er.

SIDEWAYS:

Law of Power #4 is important for anti-counterfeiting. Empower your agents in the field; but do not let them talk themselves into ineffectiveness. Focus your education and training costs to make your agents better able to provide the information you need, but not to digest it themselves. Does your agent need to understand everything she sees? Not unless you want to create a potentially powerful double agent. Do not allow any single agent in the field to collect too much information or know too much. Make her capable of conveying value with a credible degree of deniability of knowledge. It’s safer for your strategy and safer for your agents. The best agents, or “feet on the street”, are not just secret agents; they are to some extent uninformed agents. Make sure they are only capable of saying less than what is necessary to compromise your brand protection program. Otherwise, you will always be competing with the highest-paying counterfeiter for the agent’s services.

UPSIDE DOWN:

How can this Law be turned upside down? Isn’t purposely saying less duplicitous by nature? Not if you turn the art of saying less into the art of listening more. Listen to your partners. You and your partner have the following breakdown of problems: (1) Problems you can solve, (2) Problems the partner can solve, and (3) Problems neither can solve. Usually, (1) and (2) are not fully overlapping, but even if they are, you and the partner will solve them in different ways. Indeed, (1) + (2) = (3), and simply listening to how your partner solves a problem you “already know how to solve” may lead to solving set (3). When you talk, you will naturally address either (1) or (3) and so have 0% chance of solving new problems. When they talk, the focus is problems they can solve—and your chance to learn. This is really, really hard work--listening to someone explain how to solve a problem you already know how to solve. But it is the road to learning.

Ultimately, your “power” rests on what you know. Listening is a much harder skill than saying less than necessary. Listening is an active event—unlike hearing, which is passive. Learn to say less by listening. Let your partner finish her thought, and internalize what she says. If different than what you know, then why? Is it because what you had previously viewed as a single topic is actually two or more? What are the conditions to disambiguate these subtopics? Now you’re not just listening, you’re learning. And when you are likewise allowed to share your experiences, true collaboration has occurred. All by taking turns in saying less.

Cheers,

Steve

See Law #3 at: http://www.communities.hp.com/online/blogs/securityprinting/archive/2009/06/16/law-of-power-3-conceal-your-intentions.aspx