Circles of influence - a framework for energy management

“I can’t stand incompetent people”

That’s what my brilliant MAANG client told me. I then turned to ask them what incompetence means to her. They told me that when they push back on a request from external stakeholders, the explanations they receives are irrational, and often, the other party brings their manager to their next meeting, to babysit and make sure their requests are granted. When they points out to data, or try to understand the impact or rationale, the responses they get look like AI-generated-tangentally-related-but-not-substantiated nonsense. Their leadership chain has gone through some changes, and so they lack the context for a counter-escalation.

It’s burning them out - Their high standards, in combination with direct communication style and deep care, end up labeling them as having an “attitude problem”.

Sound familiar?

When we work in complex environments and act out of genuine care, there's a trap that's easy to fall into: trying to fix everything.

Not because we're control freaks. Because we care about outcomes, but because we have standards.

Because we've seen what happens when no one pushes back.

But there's a meaningful difference between caring about something and being able to change it. And when those two things get confused, that's where burnout lives.

The circles of influence framework is a lens to deciding what to spend your energy on:

• What you control. Your decisions, your outputs, your communication, your priorities. You have full ownership and final say.

• What you can influence. Your team, your stakeholders, your manager, your org. You don't control their decisions, but you can shape them, if you understand what they care about, what risks feel too high for them, and where your ask lands on their priority list.

• What's outside both. Everything else. You can monitor it, worry about it, or fight it. But it won't move because you want it to.

The most common pattern I see: burning energy in that third ring while genuinely believing you're in the first one. That's not a character flaw. It's a blind spot, and it's fixable.

So how do you actually use this in practice?

When something is frustrating you, draining you, or taking up more mental space than it deserves, run it through these three moves:

Move 1: Calibrate before you engage

Before anything else, ask yourself: how important is this outcome to me, and how much energy am I willing to spend on it? These two questions sound obvious, but they're the first ones to disappear when your determination kicks in and you shift from problem-solving to just wanting to win. Set the ceiling before you start climbing.

Move 2: Map where the outcome actually lives

Is this outcome within your control? If yes, own it and move. If not, who could you influence to get there? This is where most of the real work happens. Influence isn't persuasion for its own sake. It means understanding what motivates the other person, what outcomes they care about, and honestly assessing where your ask lands on their priority list. If it's low priority for them, or if supporting you carries too much risk, they're unlikely to move, and that's useful information, not a failure.

If influence isn't working, escalation is an option. But go back to Move 1 first. Is it still worth it?

Move 3: Name it and redirect your energy

If you've tried to influence, escalation didn't land, and the outcome still isn't moving, it's time to call it: this is in your concern circle now. That's not defeat. That's an accurate read of the situation.

Every hour you spend on what you can't control is an hour you're not spending on what you can. And it's in the control and influence circles where your reputation gets built, your scope expands, and your confidence compounds.

Pick your battles not because some things don't matter, but because your energy does.

Back to my client.

They weren't incompetent. Neither were the stakeholders they was frustrated with, not really and honestly, whether they were or not is beside the point. What they were experiencing was the cost of caring deeply in an environment where they had less control than they thought, and no framework for efficient energy management.

We didn't fix her stakeholders. We fixed her map.

Once they could see clearly what was in their control, what they could realistically influence, and what was genuinely outside both, something shifted. Not passive acceptance. Strategic clarity. They stopped spending Sunday nights replaying conversations that were never going to go differently, and started putting that energy into the relationships and decisions where they actually had leverage.

Their influence grew. Their frustration didn't disappear, but it stopped running the show.

The Serenity Prayer has been around for decades for a reason:

"grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

That wisdom isn't passive. In a complex org, it's one of the most strategic skills you can build.

If you're finding that your energy and your impact feel misaligned, that's usually a signal worth paying attention to.