Week 2 facilitator guide: earn the follow (Influence + Connection)

The problem this session solves: engineers run on two kinds of power that stop working, the title and being right. Expert power wins a code review, but it does not move four teams, and a title buys compliance, not followership. This session replaces both with the mechanics of earned influence: knowing what the other person values, building connection before the ask, and using feedback and conflict as influence moves instead of avoiding them. Everyone leaves with a map of who actually follows them, one drafted piece of avoided feedback, and one conflict translated from positions to interests.

Pre-work to send (assigned at the close of session 1): the one-pagers for the Law of Influence and the Law of Connection. Ask everyone to arrive with one question the reading left them with. Also remind them of the two starting points from the one-pagers: who follows you when you have no authority to make them, and the person you know least. The evidence round opens the session, so the calendar audit must be submitted by Thursday 6:00 PM.

Materials: slides (week-2-earn-the-follow.md), activity-board.html (duplicated in Canva, one frame per pair), worksheets.md (the influence map, the SBI feedback draft, the conflict translation). Zoom Pro with breakout pairs pre-assigned before the call. Have the week 1 room-average number ready for the evidence round.

Week 2 note: this session carries two universal modules (D, feedback as influence, inside the Connection block, and A, conflict resolution, after it), so it hosts one teach-back instead of two. It is also the first session that opens with the evidence round. The script is below.

Run of show (120 min)

• 0:00 to 0:10, evidence round (slide "Evidence round"). 4 to 5 people share last week's calendar audit in 60 seconds each: their none-percentage and the one cut they decided to make. Their numbers go on the evidence wall next to last week's room average. Script below.
• 0:10 to 0:15, pre-read question round (slide "What question did the pre-read leave you with?"). One question each, 30 seconds. Three people stuck on the same concept means slow down there; silence means move fast.
• 0:15 to 0:24, teach Influence (slides "Being right stops working, so trade" and "One law, both tracks"). French and Raven expert-to-referent conversion, Cohen and Bradford currencies, the Staff pillars. Say the bridge line out loud (talking points below).
• 0:24 to 0:28, story to land it (slide "Five squads, no orders"). Five squads at Breadfast and the cross-squad work the org chart never moved.
• 0:28 to 0:40, activity 1, map your influence (slide "Activity 1: map your influence"). Pairs, 12 minutes, board zone 1 plus worksheet 1. 8 minutes each on your own map, then 4 minutes comparing gaps. Mechanics below.
• 0:40 to 0:46, debrief (slide "Debrief: the missing names"). 3 to 4 pairs share one gap each: someone who should follow them but does not. Tell everyone to keep their map; this week's take-home starts from it.
• 0:46 to 1:01, teach-back (slide "Teach-back"). The pair presents for 8 minutes, both speak, then 7 minutes of structured discussion. Assign the three roles at the top of the slot: one challenger, one connector, one summarizer. Mechanics below.
• 1:01 to 1:06, break (slide "Break").
• 1:06 to 1:16, teach Connection plus module D, feedback as influence (slides "Safety is built in small moments", "Feedback is influence, not management", "Win the person before the ask"). They read Aristotle, SBI, and Radical Candor already; do not re-explain them. Say the bridge line.
• 1:16 to 1:20, story to land it (slide "The 1:1 that changed a struggling engineer's path"). The 1:1 that asked about goals instead of tickets, then the IC twin: the skeptical senior you win before the RFC goes out.
• 1:20 to 1:26, activity 2, three lines about them (slide "Activity 2: three lines about them"). Solo, 6 minutes, board zone 2. Pick the person you work with that you know least and write three things you actually know about their goals.
• 1:26 to 1:34, activity 3, the feedback you have been avoiding (slide "Activity 3: the feedback you have been avoiding"). Solo, 8 minutes, board zone 3 plus worksheet 2. Written in SBI format.
• 1:34 to 1:40, debrief (slide "Debrief: connection carries feedback"). Two or three people share what was hard, not the feedback itself.
• 1:40 to 1:45, teach universal module A, conflict resolution (slides "Conflict runs on interests, not positions" and "After the decision: disagree and commit"). Positions vs interests, then disagree and commit as a separate move after the decision.
• 1:45 to 1:53, activity 4, the disagreement you never closed (slide "Activity 4: the disagreement you never closed"). Pairs, 8 minutes, board zone 4 plus worksheet 3.
• 1:53 to 1:55, debrief, 2 minutes. One or two pairs name the ask and the need in one sentence each.
• 1:55 to 2:00, take-home brief, week 3 pre-read, close (slides "Take-home: the influence map" and "Before next week"). Hard stop at 2:00.

Evidence round script (weeks 2 to 4)

This is the first evidence round, so set the tone tonight. The line to open it: "Evidence round. Four to five of you share last week's artifact, 60 seconds each. Show the artifact itself, not a story about it. No artifact means not done." Pick the sharers yourself, keep the 60 seconds hard, and thank people for honest numbers more than for good numbers. Paste each none-percentage on the evidence wall next to last week's room average. The round is public on purpose: nobody wants to show up empty twice. If someone has no artifact, do not re-teach or scold in public; book a private reset conversation after the session.

Teaching talking points

• The sign you run on expert power alone: people comply in the meeting, then stall after it. Expert power wins a code review; it does not move four teams. The career move French and Raven describe is from expert power to referent power: people follow you because following you went well before.
• The other half is exchange (Cohen and Bradford). People move for currencies: recognition, information, help with their own goals, less risk. Ask the room: name the currency of the one person you most need to move. If you cannot, you have not paid attention to them yet.
• Influence bridge line, spoken out loud: whether you lead a team of reports or lead technical direction without reports, this law is your job description. The IC track IS this law: scope grows through influence, not headcount. For EMs, a title buys compliance, and compliance is not followership.
• Story: five squads at Breadfast, including Shopping, Growth, and CX. No squad reported to another. Formal authority never moved work across a squad boundary; what moved it was never the org chart.
• Connection: skip the Project Aristotle definition, they read it. Teach the micro-moments where psychological safety is built or destroyed: how you answer the first question in a design review, how you react to a rollback, who speaks after the senior person speaks. Ask: what happened the last time someone on your team said "I do not know"?
• Module D frame: feedback is influence, not management. SBI and Radical Candor are in the pre-read; tonight we use them, we do not re-explain them. Ask: who in this room owes someone feedback that is more than two weeks old?
• Connection bridge line: whether you lead reports or technical direction, the order is the same. ICs win the skeptical senior on the other team before the RFC goes out; EMs win the person before the hard performance conversation. Connection is the deposit. Influence is the withdrawal.
• Module A frame: a position is what they ask for. An interest is what they actually need. Positions collide; interests usually leave room for a deal. IC flavor: architecture disputes with no authority over the other side. EM flavor: conflict between people on your team.
• Disagree and commit is a separate move: argue hard before the decision lands, support it fully after. It is about what you do after the decision, not during the argument.

Breakout mechanics (you are solo)

• Pairs are pre-assigned in Zoom before the session. Activities 1 and 4 run in breakout rooms with the same pairs; activities 2 and 3 are solo in the main room, cameras on, mics muted.
• Each pair works on their own frame of the activity board. The instruction is written on every zone of the frame, so a pair that missed the spoken brief can still act.
• Activity 1: set the Zoom room timer to 12 minutes. Broadcast at 8 minutes ("switch to comparing gaps") and at 10 minutes ("move one name into the broken relationship zone").
• Activity 4: set the timer to 8 minutes. Broadcast at 4 minutes ("switch to the second person's disagreement" or, if you stayed on one case, "name the interest now").
• Solo activities 2 and 3: run a visible countdown in the main room and say when to post stickies to board zones 2 and 3.
• Send tangents to the parking-lot zone at the bottom of the board. Promise them to the debrief or to the WhatsApp group, then actually follow up.

Teach-back mechanics

One slot tonight (two universal modules leave room for only one). The pair presents a session 1 law applied to a real case from their own track: 8 minutes, both speak, framework first, one owned story, and where the law breaks. Then 7 minutes of structured discussion with three rotating audience roles you assign at the top of the slot: one challenger (must push back on something), one connector (must link it to a previously covered law), one summarizer (closes with a 30-second synthesis). Score with the shared rubric and send the pair your notes this week. Remind the two session 3 pairs that their slots are next Friday.

Debrief questions

• After activity 1: who is in your map that follows only by role? Pick one name: what currency of theirs do you actually hold?
• After activities 2 and 3: could you fill three lines about their goals? If not, look again at how your feedback reads. What was hard about writing the SBI draft, not the feedback itself? Which Radical Candor corner were you hiding in while you avoided it?
• After activity 4: what are they asking for, and what do they actually need? Did naming the interest change the shape of the deal?

Close

Assign the influence map (worksheet 1 is the template): map your current team plus 2 adjacent stakeholders, mark who follows you voluntarily and who follows by role, pick the one broken relationship, and write a 5-line diagnosis of the missing connection. The map they started in activity 1 is the seed; the take-home extends it to the two adjacent stakeholders and adds the diagnosis. State the counts-as-done rule exactly: the map (Canva frame or photo) plus the 5-line diagnosis, submitted by Thursday 6:00 PM, before session 3. Reflection without the artifact counts as not done. Assign the week 3 pre-read: the one-pagers for the Law of Empowerment and the Law of Buy-In, arrive with one question. Remind the two session 3 teach-back pairs. Then the forward line: tonight you earned the follow. Next Friday: can you hand over the thing only you understand?

Slides Facilitator guide Activity board Worksheets