Reflecting on Stephen Covey’s “circle” model: part two.
In this post, I am summarising the comments that others made on my last post about Covey’s “circles” model in leading change. The comments come from across multiple social platforms. Thanks to everyone who commented.
The comments added useful reality checks.
First, the "circles" model can calm the noise. John-Paul Crofton-Biwer said focusing on what we can’t control leaves us governed by fear, while focusing on what we can do builds confidence & that fear or confidence can ripple out & affect others. Cathryn Sloan described how sustained change can create helplessness & loss of agency: the model helps people see where they do have agency, where they need strategies to influence & where they can let go of mental load. Julie Neethling added a mindfulness angle: don’t let “limited thinking” take over; come back to being present; put your own actions & behaviours first - alongside boundaries, checking in on your team, & listening. Conclusion: reduce the drain from “trying harder” at problems that need a different route, while staying grounded enough to take the next practical step.
Second, influence isn’t a "soft" option. Claire Doody noted that in matrix organisations, we are often responsible for things we can’t control & sorting helps with the tension between accountability & control. Tina Patel Gunaldo said it’s often within a leader’s control to reach beyond their own department to co-create collaboration. Stephen Sherry added that teams can burn energy compensating for constraints outside their control & misread the lack of movement as a delivery failure. Conclusion: influence is built through relationships & small consistent actions, & it needs time & attention.
Third, the model has limits if it becomes too individual. Matt Walsh challenged what happens when we don’t trust the people who have control or influence over the things causing concern, & argued the model can deny collective action. Owen Jarvis warned about over-claiming system change by one organisation & suggested “collective impact,” where roles add up. Sarah Miller argued long-term change comes from redesigning the conditions people operate inside, not only managing attention within them. Conclusion: “focus on what you control” is not a substitute for organising, aligning, & escalating together when the issue sits at system level.
Fourth, it’s easy to overestimate our influence. Victoria Hewitt noted we can think we’re in the circle of influence when we “aren’t even on someone else’s diagram at all,” linking this to Covey's Habit 5: “Seek First to Understand then to be Understood.” Conclusion: to influence, understand other people’s pressures, priorities, & trade-offs before pushing your solution.
Overall conclusions: Do what we can do in our circle of control; invest in relationships that broaden our circle of influence; name what's bigger in our circle of concern so it can be escalated through other routes. The circles can’t remove constraints, but can help reduce unproductive mental load & direct effort where it can generate impact.