Influence PEOPLE

How We Deal with Information Overload

2012-01-23T17:30:00.000-05:00

We’re in the dead of winter in Columbus, Ohio, and that means each morning as I make my way into work, it’s pitch black outside. As I drove to work recently, traffic was heavy and moving slowly so I had time to reflect. As I looked around I was struck by how much there is to see but which goes unnoticed when I’m driving closer to the speed limit.

During the drive I paid particular attention to the buildings and myriad of lights. The lights were easily distinguished from the car lights as were buildings from the trees and many other objects. Having worked for State Auto Insurance for more than 20 years, I’ve conservatively made the same drive about 4,000 times and yet, on this day, I noticed certain things for the first time.

In the midst of all this my mind wandered to persuasion and how the principles of influence work on people. Just like my brain doesn’t need to process certain input – many objects in the distance – when making the drive, neither do our minds process all the information that comes our way each day. Here’s an interesting quote that tells us just how bombarded we are:

“This year, the average consumer will see or hear 1 million marketing messages - that's almost 3,000 per day. No human being can pay attention to 3,000 messages every day.” Fast Company – Permission Marketing by William C. Taylor

You might be thinking “Wow!” right about now, so I’ll wow you even more. That quote is now 14 years old! Imagine how much more marketing material comes your way though the proliferation of the Internet, Facebook, and smart phones. There’s no way you can process it all and that’s why Martin Lindstrom, author of Buyology, asserts that 85% of what you do every day is processed by your subconscious.

Because we cannot process all the information that comes in through our senses, our brains develop shortcuts to help us manage. The principles of influence tap into this subconscious processing quite often. While there are certainly times when they lead to mistakes and other times where manipulative people use them to take advantage of us, more often than not they lead to good decisions and that’s why we come to rely on them so heavily. Below aresome examples of the principles at work in your decision making.

1. When your neighbor gets his house painted and you think it looks nice you’re probably very willing to use the same painters. Your friendship – liking – lets you rely on their recommendation much more than those of mere acquaintances. After all, friends want to help friends.

2. Someone invites you to a party and you enjoy yourself. Even though you’ve never asked them to a movie or dinner before, you do so next time because you appreciate their hospitality. We tend to “return the favor” because that’s how reciprocity works.

3. You’re not too interested in seeing a new movie but four people in your group of six want to see it, so you go along. Consensus, what everyone else is doing, impacted your decision. You may or may not like the movie but odds are you still enjoyed yourself because you were with your friends and that was better than going to a movie alone.

4. You’re watching your regular news station – could be FOX or CNN – and hear political commentary from a news anchor quoting a prominent politician from the party you support. You’re more likely to believe the report without investigating it further because of the authority of both the news anchor and the politician.

5. Your friend asked you to help him move next Saturday because you once said, “If you ever need anything just call me.” You really wanted to watch the ballgame but you help him instead because if you didn't you’d feel like you were backing out of your word. That’s consistency at work in you.

6. You love IKEA and hear they’re having a huge sale but it ends on Sunday. You hop in the car and make the drive to the store even though you don’t really need any new furniture. Scarcity is prompting you to do something you wouldn’t have done otherwise.

In most of these examples, critical thinking is largely bypassed. When I give a talk or lead a training session I always have people who insist they don’t fall for any of this. I just smile because I know those are typically the people who respond to persuasion attempts the most and their strong reaction is a way to convince themselves they don’t, because it makes them feel as if they’ve lost some freedom of choice and have been duped. But they also miss the point that most of the time people are not trying to take advantage of them. There’s nothing wrong with going to the movie most people want to see or inviting a couple out to dinner because they first invited you to a party. As I noted earlier, the principles of influence generally guide us into good behavior and that’s why we continue to use them "on automatic pilot" so often.

If you're viewing this by email and want to listen to the audio version click here. If you want to leave a comment click here.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping YouLearn to Hear “Yes”.

Why We Put Up with Hazing

2012-01-16T10:05:00.000-05:00

Hazing is defined as the act of forcing someone to perform strenuous, humiliating, or dangerous tasks. It’s especially prevalent with new or potential recruits in the military, college fraternities, and various other clubs. Hazing is typically part of the right of initiation; passages people must endure before becoming a full-fledged members of some groups.

Who can forget National Lampoon’s Animal House and the classic scene where Faber college freshmen pledges to the Delta Tau Chi fraternity were repeatedly spanked with a wooden paddle, each time responding with, “Thank you sir, may I have another!” The portrayal of what the Delta Tau pledges had to go through in the movie was seemingly innocent, albeit humiliating, college fun. Unfortunately life isn’t always like the movies. Last fall Robert Champion, a 26 year-old Florida AM University student, “died within an hour of a hazing incident” according to an autopsy.

Champion was the band drum major and allegedly was repeatedly hit by other band members in a hazing incident. Roland S. Martin addressed this dangerous practice in a CNN article he called “Only students can truly end hazing.”

One question that needs to be asked is why Robert Champion would choose to go through such hazing? Why do fraternity pledges endure “Hell Week”? Why to military recruits and others voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way just to join a group? I think two principles of influence address a good bit of the psychology behind the decisions of people who want to become members of certain groups.

Consensus, also known as social proof, is the principle of influence that alerts us to the reality that people look to the behavior of others when deciding what the right course of action is. We are influenced by what many other people are doing or by the behaviors of people we view as being similar to us. Imagine for a moment you’re a part of a dozen people who are trying to get into some club. When you see those ordinary people who appear to be just like you willingly submitting to some form of hazing it would be extremely hard to be the first, or only person to stand up and say no. Mom and dad would have called what you’re experiencing in that moment “peer pressure.” It’s not unlike teens and smoking. They all know it’s bad for them – in addition to being expensive – and yet many do it because their friends are all doing it.

To make matters more difficult, researchers find that consensus is even stronger when people are not sure what the right course of action is. Never having pledged a fraternity or joined the military you can see why pledges and recruits find it that much tougher to say no.

The next principle at play is scarcity. This principle addresses the psychological reality that people tend to want things more when they think they’re less available or harder to get. Groucho Marx was famous for saying, “I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me as a member.” In other words, if any club openly accepted Groucho then maybe that club wasn’t such a great club after all. The harder it is to get in the more people value membership. That’s a big reason some clubs, fraternities and other organizations make it difficult to join.

However, hazing is only one way to make joining a club difficult and thus gaining the benefits of scarcity. Getting into Harvard or Yale is tough because of the grades required. In order to qualify for the Boston Marathon runners need to run certain times to earn the right to run the race. The Marines are famous for saying they’re “The Few, The Proud, The Marines,” implying not everyone can join. In each case, apart from the need for hazing it’s still very, very difficult to be a part of those groups.

Roland Martin is right, only students can end the hazing and that admonition extends to anyone else in positions of power in exclusive or semi-exclusive groups. Exclusivity can be built in through other means and as pledges and recruits see others going through the new, non-hazing, initiation rites they’ll probably fall in line and see them as acceptable and normal. In time, as class after class goes through the new passages perhaps hazing as we know it today, and the tragedies that sometimes result, will become a thing of the past.

If you're viewing this by email and want to listen to the audio version click here. If you want to leave a comment click here.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

The Influential Steve Jobs

2012-01-09T17:30:00.000-05:00

Irecently read Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. It was an interesting book about one of the most influential people of the last 100 years. When I say Jobs was influential I don’t mean in the sense of necessarily using the science of influence. I say Jobs was influential because the products he developed are used by so many people around the world and have set the standard for many communication devices today. Indeed, the iPhone and iPad are the standards when it come to phones and tablet technology.

I found an interesting paradox as I was reading the book, because I enjoyed the book but found myself disliking Jobs the more I got into it. At times I caught myself thinking, “I love my iPhone but can’t stand him.” I almost felt guilty that I enjoy so much what he invented because of the path he took to get there and how he negatively impacted so many people along the way.

There were certain descriptions used of Jobs throughout the book that I found to be nonsensical, particularly his “reality distortion field.” The author and many people he quotes talk about Jobs’ vision – be it for a new product, deadline or something he simply believed – as if he had some magical power to distort reality. He was certainly a visionary and he had a strong will coupled with a bully-like approached that helped get things done. For those reading this who played sports, think of your meanest, toughest coach and multiply that person many times over and you begin to get the picture of the approach Jobs used with people. Nonetheless, if you enjoy Apple products or just biographies of people who shaped history then I encourage you to pick up Steve Jobs because it’s a fascinating look at the man who’s had so much impact on the world we live in.

The following paragraph caught my attention and is the basis for this post because it relates to the science of influence and sales:

“When it came time to announce the price of the new machine, Jobs did what he would often do in product demonstrations: reel off the features, describe them as being ‘worth thousands and thousands of dollars,’ and get the audience to imagine how expensive it really should be. Then he announced what he hoped would seem like a low price.”

Whether or not Jobs understood he was using the science of influence, he was, by tapping into the compare and contrast phenomenon. This is used all the time in sales because the price of a product can neither be high or low unless it’s compared to something else. That something is quite often another price. For example, when I first started running I went to a department store and got a pair of running shoes for about $40. They were much better than anything else I’d ever worn so I was happy until I realized I needed a better shoe after logging lots of miles. Imagine my sticker shock when I saw good running shoes at a real running store sold for $65 - $115! Fortunately for me there were some good salespeople who could clearly explain what I was getting for my money.

Sometimes the comparison point isn’t another price; rather it’s describing everything someone will get. A good description makes them realize they’re getting quite a bit and can soften the blow price might deliver. We see this all the time on infomercials when we hear, “But wait, there’s more!” That’s where the infomercial host goes on to describe all the extra ginsu knives we get for the same low price we were considering buying a single knife for.

Another example comes from my area of expertise, insurance. In your auto insurance policy there’s a coverage called “liability” which protects you in the event that you cause bodily harm to another person or damage their property in an auto accident. The most common amount of coverage people carry to protect themselves is $100,000. The bad news is that really doesn’t go very far in today’s litigious society when some cars are worth nearly that much and even a short hospital stay can easily exceed that amount.

Having more than 25 years in the insurance industry I’d never recommend selling someone less than $300,000 in liability coverage. Of course the natural objection from a customer would be paying three times more for all of the extra coverage. But the good news is it doesn’t cost three times more! A good salesperson would use a similar approach to Steve Jobs and might say, “If you’re like most people you’re expecting to pay three times more for three times more coverage. While that’s a reasonable assumption I have some great news, it will only cost $X more, not even close to three times as much.”

The value of this approach is that it lets a customer see there’s clearly a need for the extra coverage (they hear about lawsuits in the media almost daily), and their satisfaction level will go up when they realize they're getting triple the coverage for a fraction of what they expected to pay.

No matter whether you’re a salesperson, involved in marketing, work with advertising or just trying to convince your spouse to spend some money on something you want, look for legitimate comparisons that will make your request look like the best, most reasonable choice. You may not have as much success as Jobs did with Apple but science tells us the odds of you hearing “Yes” will go up rather dramatically.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Influencers from Around the World - How to Present Price Effectively

2012-01-02T17:30:00.000-05:00

Marco Germani is our guest writer to start the New Year. Marco has been sharing posts with readers for a couple of years now and has written a book on persuasion in Italian, I Meccanismi della Persuasione. Marco always brings his unique perspective to his posts so I’m sure you’ll enjoy reading his views on How to Present Price Effectively. You can connect with Marco on Facebook,LinkedIn and Twitter.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

How to Present Price Effectively

As we all know, in a negotiation price is almost never the only factor that determines the good or bad outcome. There is always at least one other factor along with the price which decisively influences the final outcome; in other words, if the only obstacle to the successful conclusion of the negotiation is price, in most cases the two sides can find agreement. Let's look at three ways to best present the price of our product or service and maximize our ability to successfully conclude the sale.

1) Never talk about price until you have explained value.

Jeffery Gitomer is renowned for saying that people hate to be sold but they love to buy. Therefore there is a great proliferation of shopping malls in our cities in Italy; places we feel we can freely choose what to buy without the pressure of a seller perhaps using some subtle technique to manipulate us. In addition, each article has a price tag on it so we can immediately attach an economic value to what we see and evaluate immediately whether we prefer to keep that amount of money in our pocket (or bank) or exchange it for the pleasure or utility that the product can produce in our lives.

In the case of a direct sale, which requires the knowledge and skill of a professional vendor, the price has completely different role. The potential customer, as we begin to introduce our product, often has in mind one question, “How much is it?” To unveil the price too early in the presentation is a very common mistake of inexperienced salesmen. The priority, in fact, must always be to communicate and explain the value of the product before communicating its cost. For example, if a customer asks me too soon the price of a product I am presenting, my response is, “Dear customer, the price is the best part of this product and I will cover this subject shortly, but first I want to explain why this product could solve that problem of yours you mentioned earlier, improve your life, etc..”

2) Break-down the price as much as possible

The same price can be communicated in different ways and have a completely different impact on the buyer. If I am presenting a nutrition program based on food supplements, which cost 100 USD per month, it will be my duty, when I go to communicate this price to the prospect, to affirm that the program costs “only 3 USD a day.” In this way the potential customer’s mind is focused on the daily price, comparing it with how much they already spend each day for food, rather than focusing on total spending of 100 USD. I'm not lying or trying to manipulate the prospect, I am just presenting the same information from a different angle, which, after all, is exactly the object of the study of persuasion.

3) Explain the price in relative terms

If I have to sell a training course worth 1,000 USD, I will address the issue of price as follows, “The COST of this course, which is what is necessary to the company that organizes it to cover the costs of educational materials, rent the hall, pay the people who work the event and the speaker, is 1,000 USD, but its VALUE is at least 100 times higher. If we were to charge for the value of this course, we would have a price so high that very few people could afford it.

And, in the case of a book, “The price written on the cover is just what the publisher needs to cover the printing costs, the supply chain to bring it to the library and ensure a minimum profit to the people involved, but its value is also much higher. If the prospects objects, stating 1,000 USD for a training course is too much, I can put the price in relative terms with the following reasoning, “Let’s say you make with your job 1,000 USD per month. You probably earn more than this, but let us make this conservative assumption. If a person you completely trust in these matters, suggested you to invest in a stock, which can give you a sure income, would you be willing to invest each month 10% of what you are earning now? Now, if you are not aware of this, I inform you that investing in yourself can give you, in time, a return infinitely superior to the best stock today on the market. How many training courses and seminar do you attend each year? (If the person did me the objection of the price, the answer is almost always zero). If you decide to invest only 10% of your monthly income on yourself, in less than a year, you put aside the amount you need for this course.”

By adapting these three factors to your product or service, you can greatly increase your chances of closing a sale, provided always that you are proposing a valuable product at a fair and competitive price and assuming your primary goal is always to help people, rather than simply to earn a commission!

Marco

Influencers from Around the World - You’re the Manager - What Would You Do?

2011-12-26T17:30:00.000-05:00

Hoh Kim has been contributing to Influence PEOPLE for more than two years. One of only two Cialdini Method Certified Trainers (CMCT) in Asia, Hoh also has a masters in PR/intercultural communication from Marquette University. His website is The La b h and he also writes a blog called Cool Communications. You can make contact with Hoh on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

You’rethe Manager - What Would You Do?

Imagine you are the HR manager of a pharmaceutical company. Last week, your company held a two-day off-site workshop, inviting all 221 employees. You had several busy months leading up to the workshop due to being charged with organizing the event; i.e., selecting the venue, accommodations and food, inviting guest speakers and setting the agenda. Now, it's over and the HR director, your boss, asked you to email a survey to the employees asking for their feedback. This is important because the survey results will be considered for your upcoming performance review. Your boss said something very important, “As this is internal survey, the response rate should be over 60%. With your encouragement, people will respond.”

So you developed a survey with a dozen questions and sent it Tuesday to all 221 employees. The deadline to wrap up the results is next Tuesday at 10 a.m. Friday morning you checked the online survey system to find out how many employees responded. On the first day, Tuesday morning, as soon as the survey was sent 25 employees responded. Not a bad start. By Tuesday afternoon an additional 14 employees responded.

Wednesday morning only five employees responded and from Wednesday through Friday morning, no one else responded! Only 20% have responded and you have to have an additional 40% to meet your boss's expectation. You have many things to handle and you know you can have only one follow up email to encourage more participation. How could you write the email?

I have observed similar cases at companies and schools whereemployee participation is encouraged via email and then followed up the same way. It is easy to find people who sent emails that read like this, “Last week I emailed employees asking you to participate in a survey and only 20% responded. Would you participate so that we can improve our workshop next year?”

What would Dr. Cialdini do in this case? One of the principles of influence at work is social proof (a.k.a. consensus); people follow the majority. But, Dr. Cialdini warns to be careful with negative social proof. Normally, it’s better not to use social proof in negative situations. Think about it for a moment. People follow the majority and your complaint stating “only 20% have responded” lets people who didn't respond to the survey know that they are in the majority, not the minority. Employees will not be persuaded to respond when most other coworkers are not responding.

So what should you do? Pick some positive responses – fast, concrete, and constructive ones – and use them in your follow-up email. To test this I did a small experiment a few years back when I facilitated in a customized Principles of Persuasion workshop for a small group of top performing employees in a Korean company. Before the workshop I sent an email survey to learn their interests and concerns about the workshop. As soon as the survey was sent, 23% of the participants responded. Not bad. On the second day there was no response. Third day? None. On the fourth day I realized I had to do something so I wrote another email. The new email said, “As soon as the survey went out, there were people who responded to the survey by providing a very detailed and constructive feedback. I appreciate that. If you have not had a chance to participate yet, please do so by clicking on the link. It is a very short survey!” Of course, I didn't say, “only 23% responded...” What happened? For the next two days, the response rate tripled, going from 23% to 69%. Not bad at all!

So what's the point? When using social proof to persuade be careful how you use it because you might unknowingly hurt yourself when you think you're doing the right thing.

Hoh, CMCT

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

2011-12-19T09:27:00.000-05:00

It was in Hamlet that William Shakespeare penned the famous line, “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” I came across this quote while doing some research for a training class I’ll be leading on attitude but the more I thought about that simple sentence the more I thought about how persuasion differs from manipulation. Some people are uncomfortable with the psychology of persuasion because they think using that knowledge gives them an unfair advantage over others.

It’s true that understanding how people’s minds work and knowing more effective ways to get someone to say “Yes” gives you an advantage. However, I don’t see that being any different than good looking people having a leg up when it comes to modeling, math whizzes doing better in fields like accounting, or people with great voices having a better chance at a singing career.

In each case those people possess something most others do not but we don’t consider it an unfair advantage. To be sure, if a good looking person uses their looks to take advantage of you or if the math genius knowingly confuses you with numbers to get the best deal then we’d say those people were not acting in a fair manner.

RichardShell and Mario Moussa, authors of The Art of WOO, have a wonderful quote that goes to the heart of the matter so to speak. They wrote, “An earnest and sincere lover buys flowers and candy for the object of his affections. So does the cad who succeeds to take advantage of another’s heart. But when the cad succeeds, we don’t blame the flowers and candy. We rightly question his character.”

Flowers and candy are neither good nor bad because, as Shakespeare rightly pointed out, we are the ones who ascribe meaning to them. Flowers can be wonderful when a man gives them to a woman when he asks her to marry him. They can also signify profound sadness when displayed at a funeral. Candy might not be so good ifyou’re on a diet but it’s usually received with great joy by little kids on Halloween.

Sowhat does this have to do with understanding the psychology of persuasion? The six principles of influence as defined by Dr. Cialdini are neither good nor bad. They simply describe how people respond to one another and each can be used in positive ways or each can be used to take advantage of another person. Let’s take a brief look at each principle to see how this can happen.

Reciprocity tells us people feel obligated to return the favor when someone first does something for them. This is a great principle to know if you helped a friend move and need help down the road because your friend will be very likely to want to return the favor and help you. Of course there are always people who give you things or do things for you just so you’ll feel obligated to help them in some way.

Liking is the natural inclination to enjoy working with or being around people we like. Finding ways to like other people and get them to like you makes life much easier. Don’t you enjoy working with people you like? Sure you do. And I bet you want to like your neighbors and hope they like you. Deceitful people will tap into this principle by flattering you just to get you to do what they want.

Consensus is the tendency for us to go along with the crowd. Much of the time this is the right thing to do because “there’s safety in numbers” and “everybody can’t be wrong.” A dishonest person might try to sway you by telling you how “everyone” is doing something because they understand you’ll feel a psychological pull to go along with the crowd.

Authority is all about our reliance on people we view as experts. When you don’t have time to do a lot of research it’s a big time saver to defer to an expert. For example, most people don’t want to do their own taxes so they hire an accountant. On the flip side, there are people who prey upon this by creating a false impression of authority just so you’ll trust them.

Consistency is all about people doing what they say they’ll do or doing what you’ve done in the past. That’s very good because we can rely on people to continue in a consistent manner when we engage them. Of course, the manipulator seeing that can dupe the unsuspecting person by referring to something they said just to take advantage of this principle.

Scarcity comes into play when people’s actions are impacted by the thought of something becoming less available. Quite often this is good because we don’t miss out on opportunities that might go away. However,this can be used against us when untrustworthy types create a false sense of urgency to get us to act in the moment rather than giving us time to consider all options.

As you can see, each of the six principles has an upside. In fact, I’d say the upsides are huge because they typically help us make good decisions faster. After all, if they didn’t lead to good decisions most of the time we’d quickly figure that out and stop responding to the cues. But just as flowers and candy aren’t always good, the principles can be used in manipulative ways by some people who are only looking to get their way no matter the cost to the other, unsuspecting person. Just like the honest and sincere lover and the cad, it comes down to the motive of the person wielding the principles. I trust that you as a reader have come to see my focus is on the ethical use so win-win situations are created. Even if you don’t see yourself as the influencing type, understanding the principles will also help you protect yourself from the cad.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Unwanted Gifts and Help

2011-12-12T17:30:00.000-05:00

Gifts are usually a good thing, especially on your birthday, Christmas, an anniversary or some other special occasion. Of course, they’re also very nice when they come totally unexpected.

From the time we’re little, we’re taught to reciprocate when we receive a gift. Gifts are typically met with a verbal “Thank you!” or you might remember your mom or dad making you write thank cards. Reciprocating when given a gift isn’t limited to American culture either. Social scientists agree that people in all cultures are raised in the way of reciprocation.

Gifts differ from rewards in that when giving a gift there’s no guarantee the other party will respond in some way. With rewards an “if – then” system is put in place. For example; if you exceed your goals then I’ll reward you with a $100 bonus. There’s not much risk on my part because your failure to exceed your goals means I don’t have to give you $100.

Sometimes we get unwanted gifts, things we’d never buy or ask for, and yet we feel reciprocity tugging at us to return the favor in some way. Savvy practitioners of influence understand this and use it to their benefit by giving you something you may not want knowing you’ll give them something in return. Hari Krishnas were famous for this trick when they’d give unsuspecting people a flower and those same people then felt compelled to reciprocate with a small donation.

All of this is top of mind for me because of a recent business trip to Nashville. A group of us went to BB King’s Restaurant and Blues Club for dinner and some music. When I went to the men’s room there was a man there sitting on a stool near the sinks. As soon as someone went to wash their hands he was handing them a towel and taking a lint brush to their back.

Personally I find the whole set up offensive for several reasons. First, I don’t want some stranger touching me, especially in the men’s room. No matter where it is it’s an invasion of space.

Second, I don’t like tipping people when they’ve not done something worthy of it. To me it’s like ordering something at a counter and just because someone hands you your order they expect a tip. That’s entirely different than a server who hustles for you over dinner or lunch. When someone does something for me that I can do for myself with little or no effort, like handing me a towel, I don’t feel that’s worthy of a tip.

Not only was reciprocity at work in the men’s room, so was consensus because everyone could clearly see money in the man’s tip jar. That starts a battle inside about whether or not to tip because others have already done so. Here’s a hint; the tip jar was probably “salted” meaning the person put some money in to start with, in order to give the impression that others have been tipping and so should you.

One other thing to point out, all of this becomes more difficult when you’re the only one in the restroom. It’s like making eye contact with someone who asks you a question; you can’t pretend they’re not there in an effort to not engage.

Back to reciprocity; we feel the urge to reciprocate because whether or not we asked, the man in the restroom did something for us. I’ll tell you I didn’t tip because the whole set up actually angers me a bit. And yet after describing all of this to you I must admit, it was still difficult! Not only was it difficult for me, it was for others. In fact, when I brought this up later in the night one person in our group said he decided to wait till he got back to the hotel rather than go to the restroom at BB King’s! That illustrates just how powerful the urge to reciprocate can be.

As I share this I recall a similar incident many years ago at a different location. When one fellow in our party came back from the men’s room and told us there was someone in there handing out towels another person emphatically stated how much he dislikes that and that he never tips people who do that. And yet he did that night because someone in our group saw him do it. Again, despite his protests we see how strong the pull or reciprocity can be on any of us!

So how do you combat this psychological phenomenon when you feel the tug of war going on inside of you? I tell you it’s not easy and trying to do so will elicit a lot of thoughts and feelings. You need to ask yourself a few questions:

a. Did I want what the other person gave me?

b. Would I normally tip this person if I didn’t feel compelled to?

c. Does this feel like a ploy to get something or was it a genuine gift?

If you answered no to any of the questions then you need to remind yourself of that and make a choice not to give in to the power of reciprocity. The principles of influence usually guide us into good behavior but not 100% of the time. As I noted before, savvy people understand these principles and will seek to use them against you at times so be watchful and be vigilant if you ever think the principles are being used in an unethical manner.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Why the “We are the 99%” Movement?

2011-12-05T17:30:00.000-05:00

Earlier this year a movement began in the United States known as “We are the 99%.” If you live in America it’s hard to believe you would not have heard about it because of the considerable media coverage the Occupy Wall Street protesters have received in major cities across the country. It’s a good bet most of my foreign readers have heard about it too because of the world-wide economic depression we find ourselves in, and of some similar protests internationally.

Why such dissatisfaction in the land of opportunity, the country where almost everyone wants to live? Certainly the financial crisis that led to the economic downturn in 2008 helped start the movement as many unemployed and underemployed Americans looked at what they perceive to be injustice caused by Wall Street and other large financial institutions.

I believe one psychological reason for the movement is rooted in a phenomenon Robert Cialdini, PhD., likes to call “compare and contrast.” This phenomenon tells us we experience things as being more different than they actually are depending on how they are presented.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 Americans known as “the middle class,” approximately 60% of wage earners, saw their income increase by 40%. Most people would say that’s not bad, until they compare it to the top 1% of American wage earners who saw their income increase an average of 275% during the same period. To make matters worse, when you group the bottom 90% together that group actually saw their incomes go down by $900. While the reasons for these gaps are many, the bottom line is this; it’s human nature to compare and contrast and the widening gap is a cause of discontent.

Is a person good looking? You can only make that determination by comparing that person to other people. Do you make a lot of money? Again, that’s a relative term and can only be answered by comparing your income to someone else’s. Many people are happy with their salary…until they find out they make significantly less than some coworkers. When it comes to compare and contrast, we all do it to one extent or another.

We live in a time of unprecedented wealth and even people who don’t earn much live far better than their relatives from decades ago. Indeed, it’s rare when Americans don’t have cable television, a computer in their home and a cell phone – hardly necessities of life. Yet there’s a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction because of the perceived income gaps and that they only seem to be growing larger as time goes by.

How did we get here? One statistic I share in my Principles of Persuasion workshop has to do with CEO pay. In 1980 a typical CEO made about 42 times more than the average American worker. By 1990 that figure had grown to 109 times. In 1993, the Fed mandated full disclosure of CEO compensation in an effort to help curb this trend but unfortunately their plan backfired big time. I bet you didn’t know this; by 2005 the difference between the typical CEO and average American worker’s pay had ballooned to 525 times! You read that right, and can see it for yourself in the graph below. In all fairness, in more recent years the gap has shrunk to a mere 269 times.

How could this have happened? After all, some of the thinking behind the full disclosure of compensation was to let everyone see how much CEOs and other top executives were earning so stockholders could put the brakes on the incredible income growth. It failed because of consensus.

Consensus, sometimes referred to as social proof, is the principle of influence that tells us we look to the actions of others when making decisions and this is heightened when we’re not completely sure what to do. Prior to the federal mandate about compensation disclosure it was an educated guess as to what the market was paying other CEOs in a given industry. Once it because public knowledge it wasn’t unlike what we see with star athletes in sports. Salaries for those athletes have skyrocketed because once an athlete knows what other top performers make their sports agent begins to negotiate an even bigger deal for the athlete. It’s a keep up with the Jones’ mentality and so it’s been with CEO compensation.

Perhaps we’ve now reached the point the Feds thought we would back in the early 1990s when they implemented the full disclosure rule. The Fed thought people would say "enough is enough" back then but it seems to have taken a worldwide economic depression to wake up the voice of the majority of Americans. Where it goes is yet to be seen because there will be a tug of war between the average American comparing their income to the top earners and the power of consensus as companies vie for the best CEO talent they can find.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Do We Need Term Limits for a Better America?

2011-11-28T17:30:00.001-05:00

In November many Americans went to the polls to vote on various issues. In less than a year we’ll go back to vote in the Presidential election so the rhetoric will heat up with each passing month until November 2012. Knowing this I thought it would be a good time to look at a political issue – term limits – through the lens of influence.

Precedence was set with American presidents when GeorgeWashington declined to run for a third term and based on his actions no president ran for a third term in office until Franklin Roosevelt did so in 1944. The unusual circumstance of a world war in two major theatres was a big reason for FDR’s decision. However, not long afterwards the American people passed the 22 Amendment which limited a United States president to a maximum of two terms in office.

For some reason Americans have not done the same thing when it comes to term limits for congressman and senators. While some states enacted laws to limit the terms of their particular representatives in Washington in an effort to move away from “career politicians” the U.S. Supreme court overturned those laws saying states could not limit the term of national offices.

I’m not going to argue if term limits are good or bad. Like just about anything in life there are positives and negatives to each side of the argument. What is concerning is whether or not the best people get elected and whether or not we’re getting fresh political ideas simply because of how voters make decisions.

I remember my pastor saying, “People will remain the same until the pain of being the same is greater than the perceived pain of change.” That’s akin to, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Americans saw voter revolts in 1994 when republicans swept into power in the house and senate and again in 2010 because of our economic woes. Both times there was so much dissatisfaction with the status quo that people kicked out many incumbents. My question is, why do we have to wait for things to get so bad before we act? “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” sounds good until you consider Steve Jobs and his iPhone. We didn’t need the iPhone because nothing was broken but we’re better off for it. Perhaps we could have the same fresh ideas and change in Washington if we routinely had new people in office.

Politicians are famous for saying things like, “We have term limits because voters can always vote someone out of office if they want to,” and, “Why do we need to restrict voter freedom?” Of course both arguments could be used against term limits for the president and yet as a country we thought it was good to limit the terms for the highest office in the land. I suspect career politicians are thinking first and foremost about self-preservation, not the good of the country.

But I digress and you’re wondering how influence ties into this. It will come as no surprise to readers when I state the obvious; nearly every sitting politician wins re-election the vast majority of the time. In fact, it’s staggering how often they win. Take a look at the charts below showing reelection rates for U.S. congressman and senators from the Center for Responsive Politics.

Are incumbents winning so often because they’re the best candidates? Hardly. It’s simply a function of familiarity. People go to the polls and tend to vote for the person they’re most familiar with and the farther you go down in terms of elected offices the worse it is because quite often people vote for the incumbent simply because they know nothing about the other person running. When you’ve seen or heard about your congressman for the past four years or your senator for the last six years that’s a lot of familiarity for a challenger to overcome.

On this subject, in his book Influence Science and Practice, Dr. Cialdini wrote, “Often we don’t realize that our attitude toward something has been influenced by the number of times we have been exposed to it in the past.” And it’s not just how often we hear a name it’s how much we see the face. Sitting politicians are routinely seen in the news and that helps unless their face is connected to a scandal. I can tell you from firsthand experience that I get much better response to my emails when I include my picture at the bottom of the email because familiarity helps.

While there many other things that come into play during an election we can’t underestimate the importance of simply being more familiar with one candidate vs. another. It's the way we're wired.

To be sure we – the typical American voter – are partly to blame because we’re notoriously disengaged when it comes to knowing the candidates, their positions, and understanding the issues. If anyone didn’t need term limits it would be presidents because I’d venture to guess we know presidential candidates better and understand the presidential issues more because of how much they’re in the media vs. lower offices and more localized issues.

In a sense terms limits save us from ourselves and how our decision making might be working against us. My boss likes to say, “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.” In other words, how can we expect anything different from Washington when we keep electing the same people for the most part? Yes, we can make a concerted effort to become more informed voters but with less than 60% of people of voting age voting in every presidential election since 1968 do we really think that will happen? I certainly don’t. Sometimes we need laws to protect ourselves from ourselves and I’d say term limits would be one such law.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

One Piece of Paper: The Simple Approach to Powerful, Personal Leadership

2011-11-21T17:30:00.000-05:00

I recently finished an excellent book and wanted to share it with all of you. If you do what the author asks, I believe it will have a profound impact on your ability to lead yourself and others.

Mike Figliuolo, a friend, owner of thoughtLEADERS, and occasional guest blogger for Influence PEOPLE, just came out with his first book, One Piece of Paper: The Simple Approach to Powerful, Personal Leadership. Mike’s basic idea is that every leader would benefit from critically thinking about his or her leadership philosophy and then committing it to paper.

I write a blog on the science of influence so you might be wondering how this ties into my weekly format. A light bulb went on inside my head when I read, “Leadership is inspiring and influencing people to act in ways they ordinarily would not.” This viewpoint ties in nicely with Aristotle's definition, “Persuasion is the art of getting people to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do if you didn't ask.”

Mike writes, “But one thing all leaders have in common is the need to understand, articulate, and continuously improve their leadership philosophy and do so in a simple, straightforward way.” With that in mind he asks readers to critically evaluate four areas:

Leading yourself
Leading the thinking
Leading your people
Leading a balanced life

It’s not enough to read and think about each so Mike asks readers to put pen to paper and write their own leadership maxims. He tells readers, “Maxims are simple, clear statements that serve as reminders for how you want to behave and lead and how you want your team members to behave.”

And why is this exercise so important? I agree with Mike when he writes, “As you apply your maxims on a regular basis, your behaviors will become more predictable for your team members, colleagues, friends, and family. That predictability and consistency are the foundation of trust for all your relationships. You can achieve consistency through the maxims approach first, because you have written your maxims down as rules you’d like to live by and second, because you have shared those maxims with others. That sharing strengthens your accountability for living up to those standards.”

Writing leadership maxims will increase your ability to be an effective leader and persuader because it will help enhance your personal authority. This is true because when it comes to influencing others your authority relies primarily on two things: expertise and trustworthiness.

If you’re in leadership already then I’ll make the assumption that you’ve been paying your dues and have some relative expertise. Unfortunately that’s not always enough to succeed because much of your success still depends on getting other people to buy into your ideas and that’s where trustworthiness comes in. As you write, share and live your maxims your team comes to rely on you to lead them in the way you’ve laid out. Without worrying about “the boss,” your people are more free to focus on the tasks they need to because there are no surprises coming from you.

Nearly 20 years ago I did a similar exercise after reading Steven Covey’s classic book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. One of Covey’s admonitions was that readers take time to write a personal mission statement. If you want to learn more about that exercise and see my personal mission statement, click here. Suffice it to say, I’ve told countless people that exercise was one of the most impacting things I’ve ever done because I refer to my personal mission statement daily. Through sheer repetition it’s impacted my conscious and subconscious mind.

I really think the same benefit awaits you with Mike’s work in One Piece of Paper because he encourages readers to review their maxims continually and revise as necessary. If you’re a young person aspiring to move into leadership or someone who’s just made that move, imagine yourself defining your leadership style and using that with the teams you’ll lead over your lifetime.

How would you feel if your boss handed you one piece of paper and said, “Let’s talk about this because this defines how I lead and what I expect. I think it’s important for you to know this so there are no surprises and we’re on the same page”? I’m willing to bet you’d feel pretty good. On the flip side, if you are an employer looking to hire a new leader I’m guessing you’d be very impressed if someone handed you one piece of paper that defined their leadership approach.

Businesses take time to develop vision and mission statements but individuals rarely give that much consideration to themselves. My encouragement to you from the standpoint of becoming a person of influence is simply this – get a copy of Mike’s book, read it, write your maxims, share them with others and review them often. Do so and you’ll be glad you did and those you lead will respond by giving you their best as often as possible.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Say it ain’t so, Joe!

2011-11-14T17:30:00.000-05:00

According to baseball folklore, in the aftermath of the Black Sox scandal in the 1919 World Series, a young fan supposedly said to Shoeless Joe Jackson, one of the most famous players of that era, “Say it ain’t so, Joe.” Unfortunately the boy’s hero had to admit it was true that he and several other teammates conspired to throw the World Series that year.

That scandal is among the biggest in American sports history but ironically it will be eclipsed by an even bigger scandal in recent days, one that has people thinking, “Say it ain’t so, Joe.” This time they’re referring to legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno and his staff’s failure to do more in the wake of a former assistant, Jerry Sandusky’s alleged sexual abuse of young boys at the Penn State athletic facilities. The story is horrible in so many respects and is far too detailed for me to go into in this post. To find out details in the Grand Jury investigation visit ESPN.com.

Sports radio and major news organizations are all asking how anyone could have known about the abuse and not done more. Many commentators are telling listeners and viewers what those people should have done and what they (the commentators) would have done if they had been at Penn State. Indeed, I think almost anyone who hears the sordid details thinks they would have tried to stop what they witnessed or would have immediately gone to the police. What I’m about to say would ruffle those commentator's feathers and might upset you too.

I doubt most of those commentators, news anchors or the average person would have acted much differently than Joe Paterno or Scott McQueary.

I know that statement sounds harsh and doesn’t sit well with many people but I’ll remind you as a society we have short memories. People asked the same things about the atrocities perpetrated against the Jews by Germans during World War II – how could any human being have seen what was going on and not done something to stop it? How could anyone have actually participated in those atrocities? In more recent years the world was aware of genocide in Rwanda and did little to stop it and there was not a huge outcry from people who saw it on the news either. Five decades ago Stanley Milgram wondered the same thing about people and set out find an answer.

If the name Stanley Milgram is familiar it’s because he was the social psychologist from Yale who conducted a series of experiments in the early 1960s to see how people responded to authority. As you can imagine, most people predicted the average American would not do much harm to another person but, during a "learning experiment" Milgram found that 65% of his subjects administered a series of 30 progressively stronger shocks to a partner with the final shock being 450 volts. That's enough voltage to kill a person! There was no coercion involved, no personal history to consider, nor was anyone’s career on the line in the experiment. All it took was a man in a white lab coat – a perceived authority – insisting that participants continue on with the experiment despite their protests and near emotional breakdowns at times. For details on the Milgram experiment, click here.

In a much milder form, the Milgram experiment and many other interesting scenarios such as bullying have been replicated in recent years on the NBC television show What Would You Do? I encourage you to take a look because it’s fascinating to see how normal people respond in ways few of us would predict.

Most people believe themselves to be better looking than the average person, and smarter, kinder and, I bet, more heroic. You probably believe you are and I’ll be honest, I believe I’m all those things too. Because of our high self-esteem we like to believe we would have immediately done the right thing if we’d been at Penn State. Indeed, many of the people at Penn State thought they were doing the right thing because they followed school protocol. In reality I bet most people would not have acted any differently than the Penn State folks and would have reported the incident to their boss and relieve themselves of the burden of getting involved.

If you think differently here’s one more case to consider, Catherine Susan “Kitty” Genovese. This is the woman who was stabbed to death in New York City in 1964 in full view or within earshot of many people who did nothing to help her. The accounts vary as to how many people and the actual circumstances but it’s become commonly documented that all too often people don’t help one another when they see someone in need and the more people there are around, the less any one person feels the need to help. This is sometimes called the "bystander effect" or "diffusion of responsibility."

I will also point out that sometimes the people who protest the loudest are the people who might be least likely to do the right thing. Have we forgotten about the Catholic Church sex scandals and the numerous preachers who’ve railed against homosexuality, infidelity and so many other sins only to be caught in the very things they preached fire and brimstone about? Do the names Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker and Ted Haggard ring a bell?

Sometimes, it’s the people we least expect who take theheroic actions, and all too often, those we do expect to step up don’t. This post in no way exonerates Joe Paterno, Mike McQueary or anyone else at Penn State nor does it condemn them. This post is simply to help us understand why they might have made the choices they did. The same psychology at work in them works in everyone one of us too so I would caution anyone to emphatically state what they would have done had they been there because truth is, we never know until we find ourselves in similar situations. Sometimes we surprise ourselves in good ways and other times we’re ashamed. We would all do well to remember the famous church saying, “There but for the grace of God, go I.”

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping YouLearn to Hear “Yes”.

Influencers from Around the World - My Favourite Principles of Influence Used by Online Marketers

2011-11-07T17:30:00.000-05:00

This month our Influencers from Around the World guest post comes all the way from Ireland courtesy of Sean Patrick. Sean owns his own sales training company, Sean Patrick Trainin g, and writes a blog, Professional Persuader. We met through Facebook several years ago because of Dr. Cialdini and we’ve maintained regular contact ever since. I know you’ll enjoy what Sean has to say this week.

My Favourite Principles of Influence Used by Online Marketers

The following is a list of my all time favourite principles of influence used by online marketers and how I see them used; the good, the bad and the ugly.

1. Authority

Marketers use this principle to create a sense or feeling of how the potential customer is in safe hands because they make the prospect feel as though they’ve found someone who has or can demonstrate ability, credibility and proof of concept by knowing the exact pain, dissatisfaction and problem that the prospect is currently feeling. It's a demonstration of experience by telling a story of how the knowledge to overcome the problem or dissatisfaction came about, the journey of anguish and frustration followed by one “Eureka” moment that just blew the problem apart and facilitated a solution.

Solutions imply success and this is where testimonials come in handy. The marketer will supply oodles of proud and happy customer testimonials which make the prospect’s imagination itch with anticipation. Unfortunately all too often the testimonials are nothing more than cronies and affiliates who have an interest in the product’s success by earning commissions on each sale.

The real heavyweight to this principle is when the marketer offers a cast-iron guarantee or assurance as to the efficacy of the product that the prospect will only ever experience success. This deflects any come back to the marketer by implying that it’s the customer’s problem if they don't experience the same results as all the other customers.

The last piece of the authority principle that the marketer needs to employ is by bringing in the heavy-weight celebrities, famous affiliates or mentioning some major event they sponsor. The principle of authority when used credibly creates and confirms expertise, but when done in an egotistical manner it implies “Guru Status.” There is a world of difference between the two and self-appointed gurus are best avoided.

2. Scarcity (Fake Urgency)

When done properly and all other conditions are met this is the one principle to send a would-be buyer over the edge. It makes them buy, especially when potential customers are spoon-fed the notion that what they are pondering is about to be taken away from them due to two things:

a. Limited stock or supply, or

b. Time limited price offer

Scarcity is often perceived as the one to watch out for because it’s been used over and again, but if all the other principles are used effectively then scarcity becomes the trigger that's easily pulled. The easiest way this is done on the web is by stating right from the start that what is about to be sold is scarce either because of limited supply or because the guy in the stock room messed up and priced all the labels incorrectly, stupidly at a much lower price so therefore the marketer can't afford to sell the product at the launch price for an extended period.

The reality is that scarcity is quite often fake and the sense of urgency is false; just a ploy. The majority of products sold on the web are information products so how can something produced digitally be of limited supply? The same rule applies with price simply because no one sells anything at a loss; unless it's a liquidation sale where all stock is liquidated at low prices in order to pay the exorbitant fees of the liquidator. This why a time limited price offer can be extended and often is when the guy in the stockroom screws up again and finds a ton of stock that was hidden under a polythene cover.

In my opinion scarcity is really powerful when people travel and they see something that is scarce back home but is abundant in the region they are travelling through. But the conundrum is either to buy there and then or to go on the web and buy via direct mail when they get back home. Generally, the window of opportunity is narrow for both seller and buyer and most of the time the tourist will succumb and purchase on the spot.

3. Reciprocity (Concession)

The principle of reciprocity has been killed to death by marketers on the web. The usual tricks follow the pattern of exchanging an email address in return for some pointless or semi-useful report, whitepaper or mp3 that contains only self promoting messages rather than ready-to-use-instantly-valuable information.

A new wave of reciprocity is to receive an invitation from a marketer to a live web-conference where you can learn X and Y and achieve Z for free. It's like a 3 for 2 offer. This tactic achieves both receiving the identities and email addresses of prospects that sit at the beginning of the sales cycle and during the lead nurturing process the marketer can choose to offer more freebies of varying scales to the prospect with the aim of qualifying the prospect further. The principle of reciprocity states that I'm more compelled to do something for you because you gave me something first that was both personal and timely.

Prospects will begin to find the marketer as a source of authority through a repetitive experience of this principle.

4. Contrast

Perceptual contrast is one of the sneakiest tricks that a marketer can play out in the online world. The same tricks that a mentalist employs are played out online all the time.

This principle plays stage to how a menu of prices can confuse and distract and leave the customer financially worse off. Just the like the 3 for 2's you see in the shops a similar price structure ensures that the marketer is maximizing every dollar from every customer. But the pricing structure can be a lot more complicated if bonus materials and legacy products are offered at supposedly discounted prices.

Just like price, how problems are solved can be distorted very easily by using this principle. Questions a lot of people don't ask themselves before buying include:

a. What will this product really do?

b. How much time do I need to invest in order to get a return?

c. How does the product really work?

More often than not the obvious gets blurred by the use of other principles melding together that creates dissonance in the prospects mind. This in turn creates a contrasting perception of where they are and where they'll be in the future but at the same time seeing their potential future self in the present because they’ve convinced themselves to buy the marketers product and now feel a part of a tribe of successful like-minded people. They trust wholeheartedly the marketer to be their sole authority over their problem.

5. Liking

I like you because you appear to be similar to me because of experience, status, color, race, sexuality, football team, or our stamp collection. ; )

Liking is powerful because it brings about a sense of trust that is long lasting. We all want to be a part of the same crew, tribe, team and corporation or we like people who value our sense of freedom and independence and therefore feel camaraderie. This tactic is very popular with online marketers who launch membership sites that take in monthly fees or marketers who create pre-launch events that bring together the entire pool of prospects who suffer the same dissatisfactions and allow them to network, mingle and produce fellowships by way of interacting in web-chat facilities, forums and social media sites. It also goes hand in hand with the social proof principle that facilitates the need to purchase even more because people who we came into friending are buying, and those who bought before had huge successes and you know what they were pretty cool people too and I like them!

Hopefully your eyes are open a little wider now and you can spot legitimate use of certain principles of influence vs. illegitimate use.

Cheers,

Sean

To read about Influential Negotiations on Sean's site click here.

Jeremy Maclin, Jack Nicklaus and the Power of Commitment

2011-10-31T17:30:00.000-04:00

Jeremy Maclin might not be a familiar name to many of youbut he’s certainly a rising star in the NFL and adored by the football fans in Philadelphia. In early August he was not in the Philadelphia Eagles’ training camp because he’d been battling an undisclosed illness. The story came to my attention in late September as I was watching Chris Berman talk about Maclin on ESPN’s Sports Center.

What really caught my attention was near the end of the story when Berman declared Maclin his new “favorite player” because of his outlook in the midst of what he was dealing with. Then Berman shared that despite the uncertainty of his future Maclin participated this summer in a couple of youth football camps. Berman relayed that when he asked why he did that Maclin said, “Because I made a commitment.”

Commitment is a powerful, powerful thing when it comes to influence. Why is that the case? Because of something Dr. Cialdini coined “the principle of consistency.” Consistency alerts us to the reality that people feel internal psychological pressure to remain consistent in word and deed. Very few people like to say one thing then turn around and do another. It’s not just the public pressure because of perception; it’s rooted in how we are raised. People who don’t do what they say are quite often the recipients of negative labels: flip flopper, liar, wishy washy, inconsistent, and unreliable, to name just a few.

Here’s another example of the power of consistency. This one comes from the book Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive (Goldstein, Martin, and Cialdini). On March 2, 2005, Jack Nicklaus’ 17-month-old grandson Jake accidentally drown in a hot tub accident. The tragedy was only one month out from the biggest golf tournament in America, The Masters. Jack Nicklaus has won more green jackets (6) than any other golfer in history but when asked if he would play Nicklaus said the chances were between “between slim and none.” However, not only did he play, he played in two other tournaments as well. When asked why he did so in the midst of the family tragedy he said, “You make commitments, and you’ve got to do them.”

Wow! Two high profile people dealing with personal and family tragedy and yet they feel compelled to do what they said they would do. If consistency is such a powerful psychological principle the question for us is, how can we ethically tap into this principle to help move our agenda ahead? It’s actually pretty simple and can be summed up in one word – question.

Too often people tell each other what to do instead of asking. Here are a couple of examples:

“I need the board report by Friday.”

“Clean your room before lunch.”

Simply turning these statements into questions taps into consistency:

“Can you get me the board report by Friday?”

“Will you clean your room before lunch?”

There are a couple more things that can be done with each statement to increase your odds of success: 1) give yourself a fall back option, and 2) use the word “because” to tag each with a reason. Here’s how I’d approach the board report request incorporating both:

“Can you get me the board report by Tuesday because I have to get it to communications for proof reading before I finalize it?”

Notice I moved the date up from Friday to Tuesday. If the answer is “no” then I can retreat by saying, “Can you get it to me by Friday?” This taps into reciprocity because people usually respond with a “Yes” immediately after telling you “No.” Studies also show the odds of hearing “Yes” go up rather significantly when the word because is used and a reason given.

So here’s my take away and something I share in workshops – stop making statements and start asking questions. Do so and you tap into the power of consistency because an affirmative answer creates a commitment on the part of the other person just as it did with Jeremy Maclin and Jack Nicklaus.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear“Yes”.

Customer Service Success = Under-promise and Over-deliver

2011-10-24T17:30:00.000-04:00

I was listening to the "Mike and Mike Show" on ESPN radio on the way to work one morning when I heard Mike Greenberg utter a familiar phrase for those of us in the sales arena, “Under-promise and over-deliver.” Even if you're not in sales you might have heard the phrase before. What you may not understand is why it works so well.

Under promising and over delivering helps make happy customers because you set expectations you should be able to deliver on and that's the key. For example, does it bother you when you call a customer service number and hear, "Your call is very important to us and will be answered in the order it was received. Right now your estimated wait is five minutes," and the wait ends up being seven or eight minutes? I know it bugs me.

How do you feel when this happens, "Your call is very important to us and will be answered in the order it was received. Right now your estimated wait is ten minutes," and the wait ends up being seven or eight minutes? If you're like most people you feel pretty good...or at least better than you did in the first scenario.

Why is this so? It's simple. In one case the expectation wasn't met but in the other it was exceeded. It didn't matter that in both cases the actual wait time was the same. This is a classic case of "compared to what?" which derives its power from something know as the contrast phenomenon in the study of influence. What we compare something to can make all the difference in our experience.

Most people make the mistake of over promising and then under delivering. For example, a company wants to get a new order and they bid too low only to come back later and raise their price...or try to raise it and anger the customer. They may have gotten the contract but an upset customer will talk to a lot more friends than a happy one so it ends up hurting business in the long run.

Here's something most of us face on occasion - time away from the office. When we leave the office we change our voicemail and turn on the out of office message to alert people that we're away. When I take family time I clearly tell people I won't be checking voicemail or email but when it's not family time that's different. If I'm traveling for business I'm still more difficult to reach so I might us a message that incorporates something like this:

"While I'm away my access to voicemail and email will be limited. I'll do my best to reach you while I'm traveling but it might be Monday before you hear from me."

We live in an almost fully wired world where people expect 24x7 communication unless we set a different expectation. When people call or email they're not thinking about how busy we might be unless we let them in on that fact. My message doesn't promise the other person will hear from me but when they do I usually get a response along these lines, "Hey, thanks for getting back to me. I know you're out so I wasn't expecting to hear from you till Monday." Do you think they're happy? You bet they are because I exceeded their expectation. I under promised and over delivered.

I say this often; understanding persuasion isn't a magic wand that will get you what you want every time. And let me add to that there are always exceptions to the rule. Sometimes there's the difficult customer who doesn't care what you're doing because they want an answer now. For folks like that I always make sure to include in my message a way to reach a real live person in my absence so they can get immediate help when needed.

I love what I do and the company I work for - State Auto Insurance - but I'm not an employee 24x7, nor is work the most important thing in life. I have parameters in my life and to remind me of that my personal mission statement concludes with this - I work to live, I don't live to work. I'll never sacrifice my faith, family or personal well being at the expense of my career.

So let me encourage you; set the parameters on whatever you do and remember that under promising and over delivering is the better strategy to take because the science tells us so.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

The Three Commitments of Leadership are Essential to be Influential

2011-10-17T17:30:00.000-04:00

This week we have a guest post from Jon Wortmann. I met Jon a couple of years ago after hearing him on a radio show. He mentioned he was on Twitter so I contacted him and we’ve communicated on a regular basis ever since.

Jon is a non-profit leader, a leadership coach at Muse Arts, LLC, and an author. His first book was Mastering Communications at Work and now he’s followed that up with The Three Commitments of Leadership. He was trained at Harvard University and has consulted with and offered workshops for educational, non-profit, start-up, and Fortune 100 organizations. I encourage you to reach out toJon on Twitter because he’ll reach back. You can get in touch with him at @jonwortmann.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learnto Hear “Yes”.

The Three Commitments of Leadership are Essential to be Influential

The punch line of The Three Commitments of Leadership is simple: teammates love to work with leaders who pay attention to clarity,stability, and rhythm.

The same is true of leaders who know how to connect deeply with others. The principles of influence are really about what makes us want to work and live with the people around us. Influence can be used to get people to say “Yes,” and when people like us, when we are consistent, andwhen we reciprocate the kind of authentic interactions that help us want to spend more time with someone, it creates teammates who follow us from company to company and always want to be on our team.

Here’s how the principles of influence can make you the kind of leader whose team people beg to work on.

The first of the three commitments is clarity. We all know the case study: the leader doesn’t tell us exactly what he/she wants, and then gets angry when we don’t do what is expected. For instance, you’re volunteering with a team on a Habitat for Humanity build. The site supervisor wants the roof on the house by the end of the day. But the supervisor doesn’t tell you. He shows you how to put on a roof, and you have a great time with your fellow volunteers getting half the roof up. At the end of the day, as you high-five and celebrate, the supervisor is a grumpy bear. You ask him, “Why?” He says he wanted the roof on the house. You all leave not liking him because you could have worked faster if youknew that mattered, and next year you choose to volunteer with a different charity. The problem is clarity. Leaders who are clear, who understand what their people need to completely own what they’re doing, are also the leaders we like and want to keep working with.

The second commitment is stability. Stability comes from providing the resources we needand building a culture of trust. There is no more powerful tool than consistency to produce stability. As the old McKinsey & Co. axiom goes: leaders do what they say they’re going to do. When they do, by repeatedly giving people what they need to be successful, teammates know that they can count on the culture of an organization to meet their own obligations and goals. For instance, when Ernest Shackleton tried to be the first to the South Pole, he brought every possible supply his team would need: from wine and supplies to make cakes in the Antarctic winter to over a ton and half of bacon. Because he consistently gave them what they needed over the year of preparation before the attempt at the pole, they set a new record even though everything went wrong and they almost lost their lives. He was able to push them so hard because from his consistent provision of resources, they knew they could trust him.

The third commitment is rhythm. The old model of hierarchical leadership will notproduce the best results in most cultures today. Our globally connected and competing world, unified by social networks and powerful communication technology, means leaders have to be as generous to our teammates as they are to us. We can’t tell people what to do and expect it to get done. When our teammates take risks, offer ideas, and invest, we have toreciprocate. The CEOs who people want to work for behave the same way with their boards and executive teams as they do with every other employee. When a janitor sends an email with an idea for improving a product, the CEO reaches out and validates that janitor with the same enthusiasm he would one of his VPs. When leaders get into a rhythm of reciprocatingcommunication, ideas, and validation with every member of their team, the team will model the behaviors and the culture will show its health by the results it produces.

People love to work with leaders who commit to relationships and an organizational structure that has clarity, stability, and rhythm. Leaders can fulfill their commitments by being the kind of people others like, by being consistent, and by reciprocating the behaviors of their best teammates with every team member. The leaders who make the three commitments and fulfill them with the principles of influence are the kind of leaders teammates want to connect with for life.

Jon

You Da Man!

2011-10-10T17:30:00.000-04:00

“You da man!” is a familiar phrase for many sports fans. It seems like we used to hear it all the time after Tiger Woods hit a big tee shot. What you might not know is where that phrase may have come from and that it has nothing to do with hitting a tee shot or sports.

During a coaching conversation I had not too long ago, my “coachee” shared some frustration as he tried some upward coaching with the boss. It seemed as though the boss had a blind spot in a particular area. Let’s face it; sometimes people just can’t see what is so clear to everyone else.

A strategy I suggested was to share a story that would allow the coachee to turn the tables and arrest the boss’s attention. My idea came from a passage in the Bible in which the prophet Nathan did this with King David. Here’s the reference I was thinking about:

The Lord sent Nathan (the prophet) to David (the king). When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him. Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die! He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”

Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’

Ouch! Do you see what Nathan did there? He used a compelling story to hook David. Then he asked David what should be done with the rich man who stole from the poor man. After David gave his answer and Nathan basically said, “The story is about you! You had everything and took another man’s wife after having him killed.” David had no wiggle room because he’d already pronounced a verdict.

In the field of persuasion we often talk about the principle of consistency which tells us people feel internal psychological pressure to act in a manner that’s consistent with what they’ve said or done in the past. Once David laid down the law, so to speak, and then realized the story was an analogy about him, his eyes were opened to what he had done.

This approach can be applied to coaching or any other situation in which someone might have a blind spot. Perhaps using a compelling story or analogy to make your point can get the other person to view their own situation in a way they never have before. If you paint a good picture it’s almost like saying, “Let’s watch this video so you can see how you really come across.” Before stating your version of, “You da man,” the key is to ask the other person to tell you what they think because in doing so you engage consistency.

Will everyone change? No, but as I’ve shared before, persuasion is not a magic wand that gets you everything you want. But, when used ethically and properly tapping into the various principles of influence, it will help you hear “Yes!” more often. I confidently assert that because the science tells us so and because I’ve seen it play out personally and professionally.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Influencers from Around the World: Secrets of an Aussie Debt Collector

2011-10-03T17:30:00.000-04:00

This month's Influencers from Around the World article comes to us from down under courtesy of Anthony McLean, CMCT. Like me, Anthony is a Cialdini Method Certified Trainer, the only one in Australia. Reach out to him on Facebook or LinkedIn, or feel free to leave a comment below.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople

Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Secrets of an Aussie Debt Collector

I was recently at a social function where I met a guy who, from the outset, sparked my curiosity. When asked what he did he simply replied, “debt collection.” After a bit more discussion he said something that really intrigued me, “I only work with two types of clients; those who can't pay and those who won't pay.

This comment resonated with me because I immediately thought of the complex influence problems we encounter. I thought the most difficult situations often involve a target of influence who believes they can't say YES or simply won't say YES.

I probed further into the world of our debt collector and found that he not only ran a very successful business but the more he spoke, the more it became obvious he was intuitively employing all of Dr. Robert Cialdini's principles of influence in some way.

Of note: Dr. Cialdini originally discovered these principles by watching those masters of influence in a covert manner and then reverse engineered their strategies and validated them through research. Just as Cialdini had done, I quickly realized I was in the presence of an artisan; someone who was effectively employing Abraham Maslow's fourth stage of learning, unconscious competence. Influence was a part of this guy; he just did it and was successful because of it. We arranged to meet to discuss this further and below are the secrets of a very successful debt collector.

Those who can't pay

We started off agreeing that those who were happy to pay never made it onto his books so we would commence with those who believe they can't pay.

Our debt collector (DC) started by saying the introduction to the phone call is critical. He had to be “firm but fair.” DC commences by introducing himself by title and appropriately demonstrating his knowledge in the field. He knows that if he is to influence those who believe they can't pay he has to get their side of the story in order to understand what happened and, if possible, why. Going too hard will shut them down and that's not to anyone's advantage. With the introduction over he commences by getting their side of the debt story and uses this context to start to work through strategies to see how they can start to pay. DC highlights to the debtor that even small amounts are okay and reassures them that others don't have to know about this situation. This second element is critical because for many “saving face” is integral to the process.

DC says that truthfully telling the debtor that “others have told him that they begin to feel better once they start” often opens the door to further discussions. He stated he highlights that this simple step will also stave off any legal proceedings and will give the debtor time to work through the problem in many respects under their own terms.

DC said that while working through options he avoids putting debtors in a position in which they feel they have to say "No”. Once a pathway is identified he gets the debtor to voluntarily commit to a repayment start date and to outline how they will go about making that first payment and the subsequent payments after that.

What DC has found is those who can't pay are far more receptive after providing their side of the story. This also allows a time and space for him to outline the various consequences and to highlight the options they have open to them. Of course DC said he always finishes by commenting on what the debtor honestly stands to lose by not going down this path, including the widespread attention that is often drawn to public hearings like this. He’d added his approach is unlike many in his industry and his staff is recruited because of their ability to engage with and talk to people, not just make demands and threats upfront.

During our conversation I was able to quickly note where DC was intuitively using the principles. They were:

Contrast

· Introduce himself with the title of debt collector.

· Engage in a very different way to what people expect thus allowing for the contrast to be drawn to other debt collectors and even the debt recovery efforts of the initial service provider.

Reciprocity

· Providing debtors the opportunity to tell their side of the story and allowing them to do so.

· Allowing debtors to make their own choices with one alternatively ensuring confidentiality.

· Providing flexibility in repayment options and terms.

Liking

· Cooperating with the debtor to find solutions allowing for payment rather than making demands.

· Genuinely looking at the situation from the debtor's perspective and letting them know that it was not DC's job to make this any harder but to in fact help them resolve it without causing further hardship.

Consensus

· By highlighting that others like them have felt better once they commence the payment plan.

Authority

· Introducing himself by title and organization and quickly explaining the role.

· Demonstrating knowledge of options and legislation in the introduction

Consistency

· Carefully ensuring the debtor doesn't commit to “No” in the early stages thereby taking a stand not to pay.

· Getting the debtor to voluntarily commit to a payment plan with a start date and method of payment of their choosing.

Scarcity

· Highlight what they stand to lose by this becoming public or by going to court.

Those who won't pay

DC informed me that as far as those who won't pay, it’s more a situation in which they often have the capacity to pay, but felt wronged in some way. This could mean they didn't receive the service or goods they initially paid for or they weren't told the whole truth about the product and/or service initially. With this history of the service provider under-delivering or failing to deliver, often the debtor has not and will not take proactive steps to repay the debt. In many instances the debtor is happy for the matter to come to a head, such as to go to court, so they have a viable platform to vent their disapproval and highlight the injustice they feel has been perpetrated against them.

At the other end ofthis continuum however are those that have learned that if they don't pay the debt there is a strong chance in the settlement phase the service provider or debt collector will discount the debt in some way to get the debt cleared. Alternatively, if they go to court there is a chance they will have the debt admonished. Either way, by holding out, they “win.”

DC told me that once he identifies someone in the “won't pay” group he doesn't waste any further effort and simply serves a summons on them and commences legal action. DC said he does this because history tells him that if they won't pay they either want their day in court, in which case he gives it to them, or they want to stall on the smallest detail and/or amount to ensure they “win.” Neither of these is worth DC's time to engage in this lengthy and often non-productive interaction.

DC then stated that in his business only 3-5% of his cases progress by way of summons to court proceedings and almost 100% of this group were from the “won't pay” sector. Knowing this allows DC to recognize that for 95-97% of his cases, if he or his staff invest time in the debtor and create an environment in which they can work together they will usually get a positive result. The contrast here to others in the industry is evident in that the stereotype suggests that the debt collector will stand-over, threaten or coerce the debtor, making them feel they “have to” repay the debt today and building resentment or resistance.

DC further backed this up with some more statistics saying that when he expanded his business from Australia to New Zealand, by using this approach he was able to immediately achieve a 50% payment of debt level whereas the previous provider could only achieve a 22% repayment rate.

Implications

In any influence situation we deal with three types of people:

1. Those who are willing to entertain our messages/requests/proposals, or at least willing to engage with us and provide an opportunity to influence them.

2. Those who reject our messages/requests/proposals because while they may be able to be influenced, they feel they are not in a position to be influenced, i.e., because of organizational structure, financial constraints, perceived conflict of interest and so on.

3. Those who reject our messages/requests/proposals because they choose not be influenced. Whether it is because the outcome may challenge their status or expertise, they may feel wronged in some way and are reacting against us, or they have surrounded themselves with barriers or obstacles so you can't actually get to them to influence them.

It is important in any influence situation to do your homework and know as much as you can about the target of influence. In DC's case this is done partly before picking up the phone and partly while on the phone. What DC shows us though is even for those who think they can't do something, by working with them, doing the small things well, you allow the opportunity for things to at least be considered and influence to come to play. Occasionally the person we are influencing may ultimately not be able to say YES but they will know the person who can.

For those who won't be influenced because of choice, culture or organization design, you as the agent of influence need to reflect on the time and effort that will be required to break through the barriers and to ask yourself can you spend your influence efforts better elsewhere. If you engage with someone else, whether it is a competitor, a colleague of theirs or even one of their own influencers and they don't have a seat at the table, scarcity is a great motivator.

Anthony McLean, CMCT

newintelligence

Changing the way people think

Rick Perry declares Social Security a Ponzi Scheme

2011-09-26T17:30:00.000-04:00

Nottoo long ago, during his first Republican Presidential debate, Texas Governor RickPerry ruffled more than a few feathers when he referred to Social Security as a“Ponzi scheme.” Because of the ensuing buzz I thought it would be good toexplore his statement and the potential impact on his run for president of theUnited States.

Inthe age of political correctness Perry certainly went out on a limb with hisPonzi scheme reference. Later he said, “I think American citizens are justtired of this political correctness and politicians who are tiptoeing aroundimportant issues. They want a decisive leader. I’m comfortable that therhetoric I have used was both descriptive and spot on.”

Thispost is not about a party, program or political positions; it’s about hisstatement and the psychology it evokes.

SocialSecurity has been a part of the fabric of this country for more than 70 yearsand as such, it’s become something people have come to expect. We can rightlycall it an entitlement program because after people pay into it their entireworking lives they expect the government to give them something in return.

Wehear all the time that Social Security is broken but very few people want to doaway with it. After all, if we did then millions of people would get nothing.While they might feel like they get nothing when they pay other taxes, withthis particular tax they were told they would get something and mentally it’salready theirs.

WhenSocial Security is compared to a Ponzi scheme – which is illegal – people beginto wonder what a person like Rick Perry might do with the program. After all,the government is supposed to stop illegal activity. The element of an evergrowing base of contributors needed to keep it going is what leads many peopleto view the program as a Ponzi scheme. However, it’s very different than BernieMadoff’s Ponzi scheme. As I wrote earlier, this post isn’t about debating themerits of Social Security because plenty of other blogs, news outlets and talkradio shows are already doing that. My goal is simply to look at how Perry’sstatement might be taken by a large percentage of the population.

Inthe realm of psychology there’s a principle of influence known as scarcity. Thisprinciple tells us people value things more when they believe they’re rare ordiminishing. Put another way, we are more motivated to action by what we fearwe’ll lose as opposed to what we might gain.

Howdoes scarcity apply to Perry’s Ponzi scheme reference? I think most Americansrealize Social Security is not sustainable in its current form but they also don’twant to pay more taxes to support it. On the flip side, very few if any peoplewill declare they’re doing well enough and are willing to forego what they’rerightly entitled to.

AsI noted earlier, Ponzi schemes are illegal and if Americans think GovernorPerry will do away with Social Security then I think he’s doomed. He mightstill win the Republican primary but he’s preaching to the choir there. I dobelieve in the general election the Democrats will play on his statement andget Americans to believe Rick Perry won’t reform the program; he’ll do awaywith it entirely. That will be his undoing because those critical independentsand undecided voters usually swing elections. If they believe he might do awaywith something they’re counting on then scarcity kicks in and they’ll be very likelyto vote against him.

I’mnot a politician and generally prefer to stay away from political subjects butI felt this one was worth looking at from the perspective of influence. There’sstill a long time before the primaries and the general election so that’splenty of time for others to potentially make bigger blunders. However, shouldPerry square off with President Obama in November 2012 pay particular attentionto how his opponents use this statement against him.

Brian,CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

One of Persuasion's "Bear" Essentials

2011-09-19T17:30:00.002-04:00

This week we're going to look at one of the bear essentials of persuasion, the principle of consensus. This principle is sometimes called "social proof" but even if you're not familiar with the terms consensus or social proof I know you've heard of this one - peer pressure.

Consensus is the term used to describe the psychological reality that people are heavily influenced by the power of the crowd. Numerous studies in social psychology prove that the vast majority of people feel compelled to go along with the crowd. Sometimes the crowd is a large group of people but that's not always the case. Sometimes we're swayed by just a few other people, especially people who are like us.

It's true that some people resist the crowd but quite often that's when they're extremely confident in what they believe they should do. However, when people are not 100% sure of the right action to take, the power of consensus is magnified.

The reason I decided to write about this topic was because of a Smokey the Bear commercial I recently saw. I found it on YouTube so you should be able to view it there or by clicking on the picture below. Take a moment to watch this 30-second commercial then continue on with the blog.

Trouble viewing the video? Click here to go to YouTube.

When I teach the Principles of Persuasion workshop we take a look at some public service announcements Dr. Robert Cialdini and his colleagues designed in an effort to increase recycling in Arizona. The typical public service announcement generates a behavior change on the 2-3% range so recycling officials were elated when they saw a 25% increase in recycling tonnage after the Cialdini-led public service announcements were aired!

How did they do it? By persuading people with the power of the crowd. The three separate commercials were by no means high end, didn't employ famous spokespeople and would probably rate as cheesy by most of you. Cialdini and his associates just created the impression that everyone was recycling and that pulled more Arizona residents along.

You might be wondering what this has to do with Smokey the Bear. As I watched the commercial my mind flashed back to the Arizona recycling commercials and my first thought was Smokey needs some friends! It could have been as simple as neighbors at every house raking their leaves. When the “bad neighbor” opens the door and sees Smokey, imagine the camera showing a Smokey in every yard with a rake in hand. As Smokey at the door turns back to a man so do all the neighbors.

By doing what I'm suggesting the viewer (we're not truly concerned with the actor playing the bad neighbor) gets the impression that all the neighbors are doing the right thing in how they handle their leaves.

What I'm proposing may seem like a small thing but sometimes small things lead to big changes. If you'd have seen the recycling commercials before they aired throughout Arizona I doubt any of you would have guessed what a huge impact they would have on the recycling behavior of Arizona residents. But they did! If I were in the Smokey the Bear camp I'd rethink this approach and make sure to include consensus, a “bear” essential of persuasion, the next time they want to influence people's behavior.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Am I Satisfied? Satisfied Compared to What?

2011-09-12T17:30:00.000-04:00

I’m a pretty loyal customer. Once I find a product or store I like I generally stick with them unless something bad happens or I realize I can get a significantly better deal elsewhere. When it comes to running shoes I’ve bought all of mine at Fleet Feet for the past five or six years. They have a wide selection, competitive prices, and let you try out the shoes on a treadmill while filming you, so you can see how your foot strikes the ground. If you’re a runner you know that’s important. And the icing on the cake is that I’ve gotten to know the owner, Tim Flahaven, since meeting him at the Columbus Marathon Expo many years ago.

Because I’ve been a loyal customer, I got a $25 gift certificate in the mail earlier in the year. That’s a nice gesture and great way to keep customers loyal. If there’s one thing better than a new pair of running shoes it’s getting those shoes at a sweet deal and $25 off qualifies! I didn’t need new shoes when I got the gift certificate so I decided to hold off on buying a new pair.

A couple of weeks ago I saw the store was having a sidewalk sale with savings of 15%-20%. I read the gift certificate and sales promo rather closely a few times and didn’t see anywhere that stated I couldn’t combine the two. Even though I still didn’t need new shoes I decided to go get a pair because the savings would be $40-$45!

When I got to the register I was disappointed to find out I couldn’t combine the two promotional items. It wasn’t the store’s fault, I just misread both promotions. Once the young lady helping me pointed it out it I saw it was clearly stated. So I bought my shoes saving $25, but didn’t feel as good about the purchase as I thought I would on the drive to the store. This post isn’t about Fleet Feet because they did nothing wrong. The post is about my perception and how it impacted my experience. In the psychology of persuasion I often talk about something Dr. Robert Cialdini calls the “contrast phenomenon.” This describes the reality that we experience things differently depending on what immediately precedes the experience.

Imagine you’re a student who signed up for a tough class, one you were hoping to get a B in because you heard the professor can be rough. Low and behold, you’re doing well and start thinking you’ll get an A! I bet you’d be disappointed if you ended up with a B…the grade you were originally hoping for. On the flip side, if you were struggling and expecting a C but got a B then chances are you would be very happy. The satisfaction with the B grade all depended on what you were comparing it to and going from a C to a B is much better than A to B.

Regarding my purchase, I knew saving $25 was a sweet deal, as I acknowledged earlier, and it was a purchase I was looking forward to at the right time. The fact that I didn’t enjoy the buying experience as much as I thought I would was a direct result of thinking I was going to possibly save $40-$45. In my example above, a B is a B and with my purchase, $25 off is $25 off. However, in both cases, the resulting feeling depends on the starting point, sometimes known as an “anchor.”

Please don’t take my story as any dissatisfaction with Fleet Feet. Far from it, because none of the reasons I buy my shoes there has changed. Some of you may be thinking the store should have honored both promotional items but I would disagree because that’s a recipe for some people to take advantage. I should have been wearing my “readers” when I looked at both coupons. A store should honor their mistakes, not the customer’s. If you live in the Columbus area or ever visit I encourage you to stop by the store and ask for Tim because you’ll get the right shoe for your running style and foot at a competitive price.

Last but not least, for those who are curious; when it comes to running shoes I’m a Brooks man and my preference has always been the Adrenaline shoe.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Influencers from Around the World: The Reality of Lord Voldermort and the Gift of Global Friends

2011-09-05T17:30:00.007-04:00

This month's Influencers from Around the World article is from Cathrine Moestue. Cathrine is writing this month about the recent tragedy in Norway where more than 70 young people were murdered. I know you’ll find her insights on this tragedy enlightening. I encourage you to reach out to Cathrine on Facebook and LinkedIn and Twitter.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

The Reality of Lord Voldermort and the Gift of Global Friends

As a citizen of Oslo I would like to thank all of you great influencers out there for reaching out with your support after the attacks on July 22. My friends from the United States, Canada, and Europe were the first to email and phone me before I even had spoken to my closest family. I was very touched by this and it demonstrated to me the power of global friends and how small acts of kindness can make a huge difference.

I have never felt more a part of our global community; never have I felt so clearly that we share the same problems, and never has it been more self-evident to me that we are here to help each other. We are here to help each other, not only to get through hard times, but also to understand and protect ourselves against unethical influencers. We need to share our knowledge of influence, good or bad.

Here is my influence tip: keep giving those small but relevant, unexpected and personal gifts to people you care about because they work. The principle of reciprocity tells us that we give back to others who have given to us. And this is what I want to give back – some personal reflection on how we as a global community best can defend ourselves against people who try to unethically influence. I hope you find it useful.

Not a single day has gone by since the massacre and bombing in Oslo, that my friends and I, and perhaps the rest of Norway, haven’t mourned and discussed different aspects of this tragedy. Just like in the movie Harry Potter, where Lord Voldemort is the name that cannot be spoken, we seem to be unable to mention the perpetrators name in our conversations.

Your calls reached me around 17.00 (5 p.m. EST) that Friday afternoon while I was in a mountain cabin far from Oslo. This was just after the bomb had exploded, at a time when everyone thought international terrorism had reached Norway because of our involvement in Afghanistan or Libya. Our minds were filled with images of those who had hijacked the airplanes on another terrible day, that of 9/11, but when the news broke about the massacre at Utoya, our perceptions changed. As it turned out, the terrorist was Norwegian, a 32-year-old male who grew up where I did. He even went to the same schools as I did! His image in the newspaper, a blond Scandinavian, lone killer, stands in sharp contrast to what was initially on everyone’s mind.

The horrific events that took place have not changed but our understanding of these events has completely changed. And thus it gives us an important lesson on influence. There is a principle in human perception, the contrast phenomenon, which affects the way we see the difference between things that are presented one after the other. Simply put, if the second item is fairly different from the first, we tend to see it as more different than it actually is.

As shocking as it was, the news of the perpetrator was a relief to many. Before it was known, some young Muslims in Oslo were attacked on that Friday but left alone on Saturday. Drawing up the wrong contrast can literally be deadly. Luckily none of them actually died but it was a close call.

Influence tip: The same is true for us when we seek to influence others, if we fail to detect and correct our audience’s stereotypes, then they will compare what you say to the wrong contrast and your message will be dead. To be both an ethical and effective influence agent, we must take a mental step back from the situation and make sure that we have given our message all the available evidence. Never forget to ask yourself this question: Compared to what?

In the aftermath of events like these we want to make sure that our analysis includes understanding of the contrast phenomenon, so that we all can learn how we might protect ourselves in the future.

By now, we’ve all been exposed to varied analyses of the highly publicized attacks on Oslo, which Anders Behring Breivik is charged with orchestrating. Some analysts have focused on certain aspects of the killings such as how many he managed to kill in how little time and drawing the conclusion that he is one of the world’s worst mass murderers with a hand held gun; even publishing some kind of ranking list! Others have focused on the content of his manifesto, comparing him to the Unabomber and calling for surveillance of right-wing extremist movements. Still others again speak out about the danger of playing computer games.

I’ve been concerned by another feature: the level of systematic manipulation and deception that the perpetrator was capable of. Reading his manifesto we learn that he has been deceiving his friends and family for years about who he is and what he is doing. That he thinks of himself as some kind of “God,” hero, and martyr. It is also evident that he had an apocalyptic view of the world. At Utoya he put on a fake police uniform and lured young children into his trappings, shooting them in cold blood. Even his manifesto is a lie because he has stolen most of the writings from others, among them the Unabomber. Therefore it’s easy to find similarities to the Unabomber but I fear that we might miss the point if we only compare him to one person. It is like telling people only to be careful of red cars.

I find his mindset and level of deception a more interesting point for comparisons because it shows us both how easily we get fooled and how little we know about our human vulnerabilities. It also shows us that we are not up against some unique monster that is difficult to understand, but that these kinds of crimes happen everywhere in the world and are in fact rather common.

Only when we take this into account, that we don’t have to be fools to get fooled, can we truly learn to protect ourselves and understand the realities in which we live. To give another example, I’d like to quote Woody Allen from the movie Hannah and Her Sisters. The elderly professor, played by Max von Sydow, is discussing the Nazis crimes with Hannah and he says, “Everyone asks why these terrible crimes happen? But this is the wrong question. The right question is why doesn’t it happen more often, given what some human beings are? And of course it does happen, only in more subtle forms.”

What if we compare Breivik to others who lie and deceive and use people as the means to their end? What if we compare him to those individuals who have the same kind of deceptive and unethical approach, thinking of themselves as God? Those who have no empathy or remorse for what they have done? Do you know any? I can think of a few but one sticks out in my mind, and that is Jim Jones, who is responsible for 900 deaths in just a few hours. He did this in the name of socialism, and while he didn’t shoot them himself, he caused their deaths by his deception, apocalyptic thinking, and believing himself to be God. A comparison like that would at least take Breivik down from the odd pedestal that media creates of him being the biggest or the worst the world has ever seen. Those stereotypes are only useful for the perpetrator not for us.

It would also allow for a comparison with people like Bernard Madoff who didn’t kill anyone directly but his deception caused havoc to his victims in the aftermath. An even more familiar example to some, would be the Narcissistic Manager. True, not every liar or manipulator can or will become killers but before they cause destruction we better learn to understand their game. Because understanding the similarities between individuals that systematically lie and deceive, and how we get fooled by them, would open up our minds to the real issue. Then we could get together and discuss what to do about it.

My first suggestion is to start with reading Dr. Robert Cialdini’s excellent book, Influence Science and Practice, if you haven’t already done so. The second suggestion is making sure we are ethical ourselves when we influence others. My final thought is to help all shy and isolated children with socialization. If you see one on your way in life, reach out and do your best to integrate them in your social world. I know there are no guarantees but it is worth a try.

Greetings from Oslo
Cathrine

Acquiring Happiness

2011-08-29T17:30:00.006-04:00

I’ll ask for forgiveness upfront because this post isn’t about the science influence. It’s about an exploration of feelings which do influence our choices but this is based solely on a recent experience of mine.

Our daughter, Abigail, got her temporary driver’s permit in early August and will get her driver’s license in December. The game plan has been to keep my 1998 Pontiac Grand Prix in good working order – despite rust – so we could give it to her when she was old enough. She’s been a very good, responsible kid and we think she’ll continue that pattern behind the wheel.

This summer Jane and Abigail started looking at cars in anticipation of me giving Abigail my car. Not too long ago they came across two really nice vehicles; a 2008 Buick Lacrosse and a 2008 Pontiac Grand Prix. Both were very nice cars and after some online research I felt both were about the best deal I’d get locally. Jane’s heart was set on the Buick but I favored the Grand Prix. The dilemma was that each had attributes the other didn’t. Bottom line; if I wanted the big car luxury feel the Lacrosse was the way to go but if I was looking for a sporty, powerful car then the Grand Prix was the right choice.

I settled on the Grand Prix, much to Jane’s dismay, and without going into all the details I’ll tell you two big factors were that I’d had so much good luck with my first Grand Prix and the 2008 Grand Prix had 16,000 fewer miles than the Buick.

I think I’m a pretty simple guy because I really don’t want for much. I could have continued driving my old car and been content with it for quite a few more years. Jane and I have lived in the same home for more than 20 years and are very happy. Many things that were original in our home were fine by me but, like many people, once Jane made changes to the house I really liked our home even more. In a similar way, I drove a newer vehicle all of a sudden I felt myself wanting it.

Getting a new car was fun but it was a tiring process. It wasn’t just the warm August day that had me tired later on, it was the decision making process, spending a good bit of money, and knowing my choice wasn’t the one Jane wanted. In her defense she was very gracious and told me multiple times she wanted me to get what I wanted because I’d be the one driving it.

So why didn’t I feel more excited when I left the lot in my new car? Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy driving the car! However, I was conscious of the fact that I wasn’t really excited, or at least wasn’t as nearly excited as I thought I’d be.

I know I was more conscious of all of these feelings because I happened to be reading a book called Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert. Happiness is a subject I wrote about a while ago in a post titled The Secret to Happiness.

Here was the strange thing, the thing that really made me happy that day. We happened to be celebrating Abigail’s “Special Day” when I closed the deal on the car. Her special day is a random day once a year where I take the day off and Jane and I give Abigail breakfast in bed, some gifts and then do some of her favorite activities. It was unplanned that I’d end up getting a car on this day but because it worked out I was able to tell Abigail my old car was now her car on one of her favorite days of the year.

Here’s what truly made me happy that day; Abigail’s Facebook post said, “Well, since my dad got a new car today, i get his old one! Sooo i have a car now! (: woo hoo”. It would have been easy for her to look at my new car then the one she’s getting and feel some discontentment, but she didn’t. I knew she genuinely appreciated getting the old car and for some reason, even after getting a new car my joy was because I made her happy. The Lord was right when he said, “Tis better to give than receive.”

Here’s the really cool thing; we can all be a little happier if we look to give to others. I write about influence and persuasion so I must point out that giving engages reciprocity, the principle of persuasion that tells us those you give to will feel some obligation to give back to you at some point in time. But that aside, the feeling you get having made someone happy, especially someone you love, is more than enough return. There’s no “thing” my daughter could give me that I couldn’t go out and buy myself but you can’t buy happiness and even if you could, it would be more expensive than any of us can afford.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Influence Tips for Running a Restaurant - Part 4

2011-08-22T17:30:00.001-04:00

This is the final post in what turned out to be a four-part series on ways restaurants can ethically engage customers using the principles of influence to create win-win situations.

If you’re reading this and you happen to be a server at a restaurant then pay attention closely because what I’m going to share next is something you’ll want to avoid. Customers always ask about different dishes such as, “How’s the fish?” All too often servers talk about how much they like the particular dish. The server will say something like, “It’s one of my favorites” or “I love it.” That’s a mistake because we all have different tastes. While both statements may be true, if the customer happens to not like it the recommendation it’s tied back to the server and that could hurt tips.

The better response would be to engage consensus because people generally look to others to see if they’re making the right decision. The response I’d suggest would be, “It’s one of our customer’s favorites” or “Several people have already had it today and said it’s delicious.” Those responses engage the principle of consensus and deflect some criticism just in case the customer doesn’t like the food.

Here’s another tip for servers. The liking principle tells us people like to do business with people they like. The more a server can get customers to like them the better the odds that they’ll be tipped favorably. Beyond saying, “I’m Sally and I’ll be waiting on you today,” try asking customers their names. I’ll never forget Ryan, a bartender at Friday’s, when I made a trip to Nashville many years ago. When he came to take my order he introduced himself, asked my name and shook my hand during this quick exchange. Each time he came by to check on me he used my name. “How’s your food, Brian?” “Would you like another beer, Brian?” “So what brings you to Nashville, Brian?” After a while I felt like a friend was waiting on me. Needless to say, he got a very nice tip.

Little things can go a long way. The smart server is the observant person who can also find similarities and raise them to the surface. If the server connects on mutual interests, hometown, sports, similar names, etc., then liking is engaged and odds are the customer will enjoy the dining experience more.

Another tactic that engages liking is to look for things to genuinely compliment. Abraham Lincoln was right when he said, “Everyone loves a compliment.” Find something worthy of a compliment, raise it to the surface and the customer will feel good. Those good feelings are then associated with the server and restaurant which is a win for everyone.

And the nice thing about all of this is the server will like the people he or she waits on. After all, if the server finds things they have in common with customers and notices things worthy of compliments they convince themselves the customers are good, likable people. As customers sense their server really enjoys waiting on them they feel better, too, and everyone wins.

I’m sure there are more things restaurants can do but simply incorporating the suggestions I’ve made over this series of posts can make a very positive difference to the bottom line because customers will be more engaged and enjoy their dining experience even more. And the best part, as I shared at the start of this series, it costs almost nothing to do what I’ve been describing.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Influencers from Around the World - The Determination of the Illusionist

2011-08-15T17:30:00.004-04:00

This month's Influencers from Around the World article is from Yago de Marta. If you've been a reader of Influence PEOPLE for any length of time then you've no doubt read some articles by Yago. I know you'll find his insights on communication and influence thought provoking and challenging. You can find Yago on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear "Yes".

The Determination of the Illusionist

Have you ever seen an illusionist? Have you wondered how he’s capable of doing so many tricks? How is he capable of influencing the entire theatre?

That’s what we are going to discover together in this post. The determination of the illusionist is the most powerful tool of influence aside from his self-esteem. To be determined – to decide to do something and be convinced you’ll succeed – is the key! The tennis player “knows” the ball will be in before he hits it; the poker player “knows” he will win before the game begins; and the surgeon “knows” that everything will turn out well for the patient. The result doesn’t always matter because the most important thing is the will of the practitioner.

Let’s imagine together for a moment that we want to convince 200 people to put their arms up in the air. Well, you say, that’s easy because we’ve seen “persuaders” like Norma Barretta and Tony Robbins to do that many times. When they want people to put their arms in the air, they do it first! Okay, that’s a good explanation, but not good enough.

We have talked about our product to the crowd. We have explained all its attributes and advantages. We want people to approve the product by putting their arms up. There is no doubt your product is perfect. Can you feel it? Remember my article “Anti-Social Proof” where I said there are always one or more people who don’t like you? No matter what you say, no matter who you are, some people won’t like you, your opinions, or anything related to you. Why? No worries because it doesn’t matter! That’s just the way it is so, accept it right now and move on.

The people who don’t like you are like a “fifth column” of the public. Like a virus that inhibits what you display in the stage, these people don’t care what you say and they are your first “wall” so to speak. They are structural, always existing…but you can deal with it!

There is another group of people. These are the ones who hear what you say, like what you say, and even care about what you say, but they won’t lift a finger! You know those people? There are a lot of them around. They can’t decide anything because they are passive, always waiting for something else. And they “slow” the movement of the whole crowd. They are the “inertia” of the group that you have to break, the group you have to change. They are your second “wall.”

Wow, I have been talking about problems, limitations and “walls,” but how can we “take the castle”?

Well, if we do like Norma Barretta, talking about our product and when we ask for approbation, and we put our arms up in the air while we are ordering people to do that, what do you think happens? Yes, about 50% of the public puts up their arms. What about the rest? The rest don’t want to do that, or rather, they don’t know they want to do that.

But, as I wrote earlier, the most powerful tool of influence is the determination. So, what can you do? Well, if you want everyone to put their arms up, be determined. Wait. You are supposed to do it and you will do it!

Insist, smiling or shouting, but insist. Suddenly, you’ll see that another 30% put their arms in the air because it’s normal. They wanted to see that you really care. They needed to see you believe and that you have a high level of physical activity. Congratulations, because you’ve broken a big part of the second wall. You knew who they were and knew that they needed to be pushed a little.

Now, for the rest. If you insist, some of the rest will put their arms up. The group of “convinced” people is growing because social-proof (a.k.a. consensus) is growing every second. You are growing stronger and bigger but you’re still not there.

The most important thing is not to give power to the “fifth column” of people. Just reframe the group as resistant but not-yet-convinced. You see? Be calm, I know it’s not easy to resist the “failure” and you can feel it easily. But remember, determination. Determination, determination, determination!

And pride. You have to start showing a kind of pride. The fact is there are still people that haven’t been moved but this is a victory. You only see the ones who are convinced.

Let’s move them slowly but with energy. Make the not-yet-convinced to feel alone. Remember, you are a type of illusionist and your “trick” always succeeds because you've decided what it is!

At the end, there are only two or three people still in their chairs. Don’t worry because it’s normal, remember? We are surrounded by modern August Landmessers but it is okay because we understood that beforehand. So, we can predict the result and we get to define success.

If you have the determination you’ll move the masses, you will move the crowd. We have an impulse that makes us follow those who know, or makes us believe that they know, where they are going (authority). We have an impulse to move like the other when he moves decidedly (liking). We have an impulse to do what the others do (consensus). We have an impulse to do what the other insist to do (consistency). We have an impulse to continue doing what the other appreciate (reciprocity).

And you have the map, you know the rules, and have the determination. Just do it. Just do it. Just do it.

Yago de Marta
International Speech and Media training expert
www.yagodemarta.com

Coaches Aren't Just for Athletes

2011-08-11T04:00:00.004-04:00

I was invited by Mike Figliuolo to write a guest post for his blog, thoughtLEADERS, this week. Mike's written several guest posts for Influence PEOPLE so I'm always happy to return the favor (reciprocity). The article focuses on the need for coaching to maximize each individual's performance in the business environment. I hope you enjoy the article.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Coaches Aren't Just for Athletes

I think you’ll agree with this statement; no athlete can reach their full potential without a great coach.

When you think of some of the greatest athletes quite often they’re synonymous with their coach. Michael Jordan had Phil Jackson, Tiger Woods started with Butch Harmon, and Mary Lou Retton worked with Bella Karolyi. None of them would have attained the greatness they did without the guidance and feedback from their coaches.

Why is it in business we think we can reach our full potential without coaching? Great leaders are not just visionaries, they coach. They help their people develop so they can succeed in their role and get ready for the opportunities that may come down the pike. Over the years I’ve heard many reasons and have listed a few of the most common below:

To to read the rest of this article at thoughtLEADERS click here.

The Role of Influence in the Markets

2011-08-08T17:30:00.009-04:00

I’m willing to bet the majority of you reading this week’s post have seen the 1940s Christmas classic It’s a Wonderful Life which starred Jimmy Stewart as George Bailey. You know the story; George Bailey contemplates suicide on Christmas Eve because his building and loan business looks like it’s going to go under and he thinks the world would have been better off had he not been born. In the scene that leads to his despair there’s a run on his Building and Loan company and it nearly goes under. What’s clear in the movie was panic set in and more and more people wanted their money fearing they might not get it if they waited much longer.

We saw something similar in recent weeks in the stock and bond markets in the United States so I thought it would be good to look at some of the psychology behind what happened.

First there was the debt crisis. Americans and the world started getting very antsy as they watched the game of chicken played by President Obama and the democrats with House Speaker Boehner and the republicans. There was talk that an agreement might not be reached because the two sides have very different viewpoints on the role of government, the use of debt and how the economy best operates. The uncertainty lead to fear and as the old saying goes, “Perception is reality.”

The fear is rooted in scarcity, the principle of influence that tells us people want something more when they believe it will be less available. When investors think the government will make moves that could hurt their investments they will take actions to minimize their potential loss and quite often that means they sell while they can. The result of the uncertainty; the market lost several hundred points that week even though a deal was ultimately reached.

Unfortunately it went from bad to worse the following week! The market reacting to fears of a worldwide recession and not being too pleased the government compromise on the debt started another sell off. On Thursday, August 4, I recall looking at some news outlets during lunch and seeing the Dow Jones was down 350 points! By the end of the day it was down over 500 points which meant it had lost about 1000 points, or nearly 9% of its value, in just over a week. Not good for those of us saving for retirement and/or kid’s college!

While the run might have been sparked by fear it was compounded as investors looked around, took note of what others were doing and followed suit. In other words, consensus, the principle of influence that tells us people look to others for their cues on how to act, was at work. This particular principle is magnified in times of uncertainty and we saw something similar to what George Bailey was facing with the run on his little Building and Loan business.

By the end of the week, for the first time ever – including during the Great Depression – the United States bond credit rating was lowered from AAA to AA+ by Standard & Poor’s. This creates more uncertainty as investors are waiting to see how the other major credit rating bureaus will react. If they follow suit things could continue to snowball. However, if the other agencies express confidence in the U.S. government’s ability to meet its debt obligations and keep their AAA ratings things might even out some.

The White House vigorously contends S&P’s measurement that led to the lower rating was an inaccurate representation of the debt and government spending. Unfortunately, given all that’s gone on government officials may not have much credibility (authority) in this “he said, she said” back and forth that’s taking place.

Confidence is not something that can be measure like speed, strength or IQ. Confidence is a matter of perception and, as noted above, perception is quite often reality until something happens to change that reality. Consider this; no one thought a man could run a mile in less than four minutes. Many tried but all failed over the course of human existence. Even physicians began weighing in saying it was not humanly possible. However, all of that changed on May 6, 1954, when Roger Bannister finally broke the four minute barrier. Once he did it dozens of other runners did so in the ensuing months and years. In fact, just 46 days later, his new record was already history as John Landy set a new world record for the mile. Why all these sub four minute milers setting new records? Because all of a sudden people were confident it could be done. Their perception changed and so did reality.

It may not be the government’s doing something that will restore confidence, it might be key investment houses, individual investors or some other outside organization but until it happens we’ll all be like the myriads of runners prior to May 1954, a group of people who don’t believe it can be done.

P.S. The DJI fell more than 630 points as this post hit the internet!

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Influence Tips for Running a Restaurant - Part 3

2011-08-01T17:30:00.006-04:00

Here we are in the third part in a series of posts directed at those working in the restaurant industry. I believe the application of the principles of influence in an ethical manner can help restaurants, wait staff and customers in a win-win-win way.

A couple of weeks I wrote about a way for servers to garner more tips. I’ll talk about another thing servers can do to increase their take home pay. Believe it or not, something as simple as a mint causes many people to tip more. Many of you might be thinking you’d never tip more simply because you got a mint. Not everyone does but if some are moved to tip more just because they got a mint then isn’t it worth the effort?

In one study researchers found that servers giving a single mint to customers increased tips by more than 3%. But the investment of two mints did more than double that amount…it increased tips by 14%! That’s right; servers who regularly gave customers two mints saw their tips increase by 14% in the study. That takes no more effort than handing a single mint to each customer, so it’s the smart thing to do.

You may be wondering why this happens. Researchers believe it has to do with reciprocity. This principle of persuasion tells us people feel obligated to give back to those who’ve first given to them. The act of giving mints taps into this principle and people open their wallets a little wider and the more mints they were given the deeper they dug into their wallets.

As they say on some of the cheesy infomercials, “But wait, there’s more!” One more mint condition was tested. With a third group of servers they would give a single mint to patrons then start to walk away. However, they never got too far because they would suddenly wheel around and say something like, “You guys have been great,” and would give everyone another mint. Believe it or not, in this scenario the average tip was almost 25% higher than the control group! Like the group previously mentioned, it was only two mints per person but the fact that the giving was personal to that table was what really made the difference. Of course this tactic can’t be used on everyone because not all customers are great so it would be unethical, dare I say manipulative, to engage all customers that way. But there are some who are fun to wait on and if servers treat them in a special way when engaging reciprocity their tips should soar.

Next time you’re eating out and see mints somewhere near the door as you leave you’ll know that establishment is bungling away a chance to help the wait staff make a little more money and satisfy customers. Of course, the smart server will invest in their own bag of mints because they’ll be able to buy them in droves with all the extra cash they’ll have from their increased tips.

Next week we'll conclude this series with a final post on tips for those in the restaurant industry.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Consistency in American Politics

2011-07-25T17:30:00.007-04:00

I know conventional wisdom says we should not talk about sex, religion or politics but I’m going to go against that wisdom this week to talk about something I observe in American politics that hurts all Americans. The genesis of this post is seeing yet another story about the political fight going on regarding America’s growing debt and the debate on how to handle the debt ceiling crisis.

I’m not big on politics and offer no solutions to our problems. We elect people to solve those problems just like we hire accountants to help us with taxes and lawyers to help answer legal questions. We share our goals with those professionals so they can come up with solutions that best suit us and we essentially do the same with elected representatives.

A big problem with politics stems from the principle of influence known as consistency. This principle tells us people feel internal psychological pressure to remain consistent in word and deed. Normally this is very good because it motivates people to do what they said and adhere to their word. When people don’t follow through we usually look down on them. When I lead a Principles of Persuasion workshop I usually ask participants to describe people who are not consistent and a few words I typically hear include: unreliable, flaky, wishy-washy, and inconsistent. Occasionally someone will go against the tide and say “flexible.”

Rigidly adhering to your word can come back to haunt you if it’s proven your original stance was wrong or circumstance require a change. I’m sure President George Bush Sr. wishes he never uttered, “Read my lips – no new taxes.” When it became clear taxes had to go up he lost all credibility with the American public.

Unfortunately, most American politicians pander to the faithful of their party in order to get elected and in doing so they make public statements in no uncertain terms about what they will or won’t do. They leave no room for change lest they get branded by an opponent as unreliable, flaky, wishy-washy, and inconsistent.

To be sure politicians should have convictions and share those with the public so we can make the best informed decision on who we want to represent us. However, when they dig themselves into positions so deeply that there’s no room for real dialog with the other side and potential compromise for the good of the country then we get what we have now – political gridlock.

Of course each person will tell us they’re just carrying out the wishes of their constituents back home and simply doing what they were sent to Washington to do. As far as I'm concerned that’s a meaningless bunch of drivel! Anyone can use that line to justify nearly any vote they make. It’s analogous to the defense lawyers declaring “the system works” because Casey Anthony got off. The same thing could have been uttered by prosecutors if she had been convicted. If the system works no matter what the verdict then the phrase is meaningless…or maybe the process is!

The following is my opinion only so you can take it or leave it but I still get to write it because it’s my blog. I want elected officials who have one overriding goal, the good of the country. If that means setting aside some ideology so compromise can be reached then so be it. Or perhaps they can start by telling voters what they stand for but that they’re willing to change if necessary for the good of the country.

Next week we’ll get back to the series I’m doing on influence tips for restaurant owners. Until then, thanks for faithfully reading and for allowing me to rant a little this week.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Influence Tips for Running a Restaurant - Part 2

2011-07-18T17:30:00.006-04:00

I started this series last week mentioning all the traveling I’ve done during the first half of the year and how it’s given me lots of opportunities to see how restaurants operate. Employing the psychology of persuasion can help customers enjoy the whole dining experience more and that will help the restaurant because of repeat customers. Since my interaction is primarily with the wait staff most of the ideas I share will revolve around them.

Have you ever had your server come up and ask, “Does everything taste fine?” Sure, you have and so have I. I’d have to say that’s what I hear more often than not. When I think about it that phrase it reminds me of the person who, when asked how they’re doing typically says, “Not bad.” So bad is the standard and they’re not bad. Many of you might be thinking you know what they mean when they say that and I do, too, but isn’t it more uplifting to hear something like, “Doing great. Thanks for asking”? Sure it is.

From The Customer Rules : The 14 Indispensible, Irrefutable, and Indisputable Qualities of the Greatest Service Companies in the World by C. Britt Beemer; “Bill Pulte, founder and chairman of Pulte Homes, explains. ‘At Pulte, we work on the premise that we don’t want to satisfy the customer, we want to delight the customer. Here’s what I mean. When a husband and his wife go to a restaurant for dinner and have a nice meal, they are satisfied with it. So they go home and that’s the end of it. They forget about it. On the other hand if they had a fabulous meal and extraordinary service, what do they do? They tell their friends about it. With this in mind, we don’t think that just being satisfied is good enough.’”

Let’s get back to our server. When you go to a restaurant aren’t you expecting the food to be good, great, tasty, delicious, or something else other than just “fine”? I know I am. If I were managing a wait staff my instructions would be that they ask customers, “Does your food taste good?” or “Isn’t the chicken delicious?” or some other phrase that gets customers to think about how good the food is…not that it’s just fine. If customers affirm that the food was good, tasty or something other than fine they’re likely to feel better about the dining experience. That will make them more likely to return and probably tip better.

Why do I think they’ll enjoy the dining experience more and tip better? Because the principle of consistency dictates they will. This principle of influence tells us people feel internal psychological pressure to be consistent in what they say and do. If you want to remember that just think “word and deed” because people like their words and deeds to match up.

If I affirm that the food is good when asked then it would be inconsistent for me to not come back for more at some point. The server can strengthen those odds by asking, “That’s nice to hear. Do you think you’ll be back to see us?” Again, most people would probably say yes to that question and more will return because of it.

I said I think tips will be bigger too as a result. People usually tip based on good service and good food. Poor service or poor food is disastrous for the server who depends on tips for a living. Having them affirm that the food was very good helps move the tipping process along nicely because it’s only consistent to tip well assuming the service was also good.

Next week we'll take a look at more ways to run a restaurant using the psychology of influence.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Influence Tips for Running a Restaurant - Part 1

2011-07-11T17:30:00.010-04:00

Lots and lots of travel the first half of the year! By the time it was over I’d visited Baltimore, MD; Austin, TX; Nashville, TN; Chicago, IL; Greensboro, NC; Cincinnati, OH; State College, PA; Cleveland, OH; Milbank, SD; Des Moines, IA; Indianapolis, IN and possibly a few other places I’ve forgotten. With all the travel comes many nights in hotels and dining out.

I’ve blogged before about how hotels are bungling away opportunities to get more people to reuse towels and bed sheets to help the environment so I’ll steer clear of that this week. If you want to learn about what those hotels could do then click here.

As you can imagine, with all the meals on the road I’ve had ample opportunity to observe how restaurants operate. When it comes to engaging customers to help them enjoy the dining experience a little more, and ultimately help the restaurant’s bottom line, there’s plenty of room for improvement so I thought I’d share some psychological tips for running a restaurant -- ideas I’d personally implement if I owned a restaurant. I’ll state up front that most of the ideas I’ll share can be implemented without spending any additional money or very, very little in some cases. Restaurant owners, do I have your attention?

Because there’s a good bit to explore and due to the need to talk about the psychology behind my suggestions, this will be multi part series with short blog posts over four weeks.

Let’s start with the menu and talk very specifically about wine. All too often after grouping the wines (Merlot, Chardonnay, Zinfandel, Shiraz, etc.) the listings seem haphazard, at least to the non-wine connoisseur. Unless you’ve a very upscale restaurant with wine lovers for clients I think this is a mistake. Much of the time the cheapest wines are listed first which is an even bigger mistake!

In psychology there’s something known as the contrast phenomenon which tells us what people see or experience first greatly impacts how they perceive the next stimuli they experience. For example, when buying a suit no good salesperson would start the sales process by showing the client accessories. If a salesperson did so the cost of the suit would seem too expensive. Think about it; if you are shown a shirt and tie combo that costs $75-$100 to start then the suit seems even more expensive by comparison. The smart salesperson sells the suit first because then, by comparison, the shirt and tie don’t seem nearly as expensive. Even if the customer doesn’t buy the shirt and tie a least the big ticket item was sold.

How does this relate to the restaurant selling wine? If the average customer starts reading the menu and sees a $20 bottle immediately then by the time they get to the $200 bottle it seems way more expensive by comparison! However, if the more expensive wines are listed first then by comparison the $75 or $50 bottle starts to seem like a bargain. Simply rearranging the order of the wine from most expensive to least the next time new menus are made up should lead to increased sales becomes more people are apt to buy the more expensive wines. They still may not get the $200 bottle but they’re much more likely to consider some of the other more expensive wines.

The same thought process goes for most other menu items. After separating the entrees from the sandwiches, and salads from the starters, the restaurant owner would do well to list food items from most expensive to least.

Next week we’ll look at some things the wait staff can do to increase customer satisfaction and tips.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Influencers from Around the World - Influence in the Hell of Auschwitz

2011-07-04T17:30:00.004-04:00

With this month's Influencers from Around the World we get the honor of hearing from my friend Marco Germani again. Marco has written several guest posts for Influence PEOPLE and always has something very interesting to share with us. I know you'll enjoy Marco's insights on Influence in the Hell of Auschwitz. I encourage you to reach out to Marco on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

Brian, CMCT

influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

INFLUENCE IN THE HELL OF AUSCHWITZ

Nazi death camps during the Second World War were without a doubt among the darkest moments in human history. What happened in those places, reported to us by the few who had the incredible good fortune to survive, is beyond all human logic and any rational understanding. Among the many poignant written evidences of the tragedy of the Holocaust, some can be placed alongside the literary masterpieces of our time. It is the case of the famous book "Se questo è un uomo" (If This Is a Man) by the Italian Primo Levi, which contains a remarkable attempt at a psychological analysis of the dynamics engaged among the prisoners within that scary context. I have read his book many times already and each time it doesn't fail to touch a chord within me and to engage me in deep reflections about life and human behavior. The last time I read the book, my attention was caught by a short profile of one of Levi’s companions in misfortune, simply referred as Eng. Alfred L.

Levi writes: “L. ran in his country a very important chemical plant and his name was (and is) known in industrial circles throughout Europe. I do not know how he had been arrested, but I know he had entered the prison camp as everyone else did: naked, alone and unknown.”

Although apparently that particular situation presented no way out, L. had decided not to surrender before his time had come and, on the contrary, he implemented a precise strategy to save his life. Levi continues: “...no one had ever heard him complain. Indeed, the few words he let fall were such as to suggest resources to a powerful secret and solid organization. This was confirmed in his appearance. L. was impeccable: the hands and face perfectly clean, he had a rare dedication to wash his shirt every two weeks, without waiting for a change every two months (we note here that washing the shirt means to find the soap, find the time, find the space in crowded laundry; adapt to closely monitor, without taking off his eyes a single moment, the wet shirt and wear it, of course, still wet, at the hour of silence, when the lights go out in custody). L. had obtained essentially the entire appearance of a prominent long before becoming one: since only much later I learned that all this apparent prosperity had been earned by L. with incredible tenacity, paying each individual service and purchase with the bread of his own rations, undergoing additional inflicted hardship.”

The plan of L. was clear; through the principle of authority, he had decided to appear in the eyes of his captors as a powerful person. Someone strong, that would be saved, even if it meant standing for hours with a wet shirt in the snow with 10 C degrees below zero during appeals. Even if it meant giving up the daily ration of bread which each time, pushed only a few steps away death from starvation, for the Auschwitz prisoner. In Levi's words: “L. knew that between being and becoming powerful the distance is short, and that everywhere, but particularly among the general leveling of the camp, being respectable is the best guarantee of being respected.”

As it usually happens, the disciplined efforts of L. finally paid off: “When Nazi established the Chemical Kommando, L. realized that his hour had come. He needed no more than his clear shirt and his gaunt but shaved face in the middle of the herd of the sordid and the slovenly to convince the Kapo and Arbeitsdienst that he was a truly saved, a prominent potential. So (who has will be given) he was undoubtedly appointed chief engineer at the Kommandos and assumed direction of the Buna lab as an analyst in the Department of Styrene.” In other words, salvation from death by exhaustion from physical work, from exposure, starvation or selections for the gas chambers.

Despite this methodical and disciplined application of the principle of authority, which saved his life, strangely Levi closes the story with words that reveal a degree of moral condemnation to what L. had implemented. “I do not know more of his story, but I think it is very likely that he escaped death, and lives his life now as a cold, firm and joyless ruler,” making it plain to the reader that the plan of L., had contemplated some kind of vile acts toward others convicted, omitted in the description made to us in the book.

Marco

Decision Making and Rationality – Part 4

2011-06-27T17:30:00.002-04:00

This is the final installment in the series on decision making. The information I’ve been discussing was derived from a survey I conducted over a month ago with readers.

Question 8 on Survey A was: Your company is surviving in this economy but is looking for ways to save money. Inflation is 0% and the company has decided to cut wages across the board by 3%. Is this fair? Nearly two-thirds (62%) said this was not fair.

On Survey B the question was slightly different: Your company is surviving in this economy but is looking for ways to save money. Inflation is expected to be 6% this year and the company has decided to give a 3% wage increase to everyone. Is this fair? Slightly more than two-thirds (67%) said this was fair.

Here’s the point: Both questions are really the same. In each case your buying power will fall by 3% because of inflation. The first case it unpalatable because no one likes to lose (scarcity) and that’s how it feels when your pay is cut. The second scenario doesn’t seem so bad because at least you got something. However, at the end of the day both employees have the same buying power if inflation turns out as predicted. Never forget, how you position things can make all the difference.

Question 9 on Survey A: You’re playing a game and your partner was given $100 to share with you any way they see fit. The two of you get to keep the $100 but only if you think you’ve been treated fairly. What’s the least amount you would want in order to not reject the deal?

Just over two thirds of the respondents said sharing $50 would be fair. The average of fair for all responses was $41.88.

On Survey B the question was: You’re playing a game and you’re given $100 to share with the person you’re playing with. The two of you get to keep the $100 but only if the other person agrees you’ve been fair. How much will you give the other person?

Here 93 0f 100 respondents said $50 w0uld be fair and the average of fair was $50.33.

Here’s the point: Both questions put survey takers in opposite positions. You know you can lose everything in Survey A if your offer is not perceived as fair so you better consider what the other person thinks is fair. As we’ve seen, most people view fair as roughly equal portions.

In Survey B the tables are turned and you can reject the deal which means the other person loses out too if you feel they’re not being fair. However, wouldn’t it be foolish to reject any offer because accepting even $1 makes you better off than you were before the game? What’s the point in teaching the other person – who you’ll probably never see again – a lesson because you didn’t think they were being fair?

Of course, in either scenario there’s lots to be considered if you will see the other person again, especially of you have an ongoing relationship. People take being fair very seriously and you’d best get to know the other person and try to learn their value system if you expect to have a good, long-term working relationship.

Question 10 dealt with salary increases relative to others in the same department. In Survey A the question read: You got a raise from $65,000 to $80,000. You’re now the highest paid person in your department. On a scale of 1-100 (1 least, 100 most) how happy are you?

The question was very similar for Survey B except how your new pay ranks in the department: You got a raise from $65,000 to $80,000. You learn you’re only the 3rd highest paid in your department out of five people. On a scale of 1-100 (1 least, 100 most) how happy are you?

As you can imagine, people in Survey A were happier, the average score being 83.6%with men coming in at 82% and women 86%. In Survey B the average was 74.2% with men being less satisfied at 72% and women reporting happiness of 76%.

Here’s the point: Sometimes we’re better off not comparing ourselves to others. There are times when comparisons are needed to make sure we’re not taken advantage of but quite often that’s not the case as we make comparisons. I wrote a blog post, “The Secret to Happiness,” where I shared a personal philosophy, “Happy is the man who wants what he has.” I must say my thinking in this area is impacted by Biblical principles which continually tell us not to compare ourselves to others because that becomes a source of greed, lust and envy.

I hope you found the survey and resulting posts helpful in understanding how and why people make decisions. If you’re trying to influence people recognizing they don’t always make decisions in the most rational manner is helpful because you can adjust your presentation accordingly. Doing so in an ethical manner can lead you to me more persuasive and hear “Yes” more often.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Decision Making and Rationality – Part 3

2011-06-20T17:30:00.002-04:00

For the past few weeks we’ve been looking at data from a survey I conducted with Influence PEOPLE readers. My goal in doing the survey was to understand how people make decisions. If you’d like to know more about the survey background click here. This week we’ll continue to explore some interesting things about how people make decisions.

Question 6 on Survey A had to do with selling your home. I realize there’s a lot to consider when selling a home but nonetheless the question read as follows: You bought your home for $189,000. At the peak of the housing market it was appraised for $279,000, so even though you don’t have to move you decided to try to sell it. With the recent market all prices have come down. You’re offered $212,000. Will you sell?

Under these circumstances 77% declined to sell.

On Survey B the question was essentially the same except the peak value was much lower: You bought your home for $189,000. At the peak of the housing market it was appraised for $229,000, so even though you don’t have to move you decided to try to sell it. With the recent market all prices have come down. You’re offered $212,000. Will you sell?

In this economic scenario 53% of people said they would sell.

Here’s the point: If you take another look at the questions you’ll see the selling price is the same in both cases, $212,000, which means the profit is the same on each sale. The difference is what people thought their house was worth during the housing bubble. It’s a classic “compared to what” situation and loss aversion. People who thought their house was worth $279,000 at one time are very, very reluctant to sell. As I noted last week, the same thing happens with stocks when people hang on to losing stocks hoping they’ll rebound.

In the second survey with the peak price being much lower made people feel less pain thinking about what they might have gotten and as a result more than twice as many were willing to sell when compared to Survey A. Knowing the housing market was over inflated due to bad loans shouldn’t the real question be; is a $212,000 selling price a good return on an $189,000 home? Take the comparisons out and people make very different decisions.

Question 7 on Survey A went like this: You’re playing a game and you’re given $100 to share with the person you’re playing with. Between the two of you, you get to keep the $100 no matter how you choose to split it. What would you give to the other person?

On Survey B the question was: You’re playing a game and your partner was given $100 to share with you. Between the two of you, both get to keep the $100 no matter how they split it. How much would the other person have to give you to for you to consider it a fair split?

On Survey A the average response was $50.38 and on B it was $47.76. As you can imagine the vast majority of people put $50 on both surveys (87% on Survey A and 84% on Survey B) as being the fair amount.

Here’s the point: We have an ingrained idea that “fair” is an equal split when in reality, if you were given $100 and could share that amount however you wanted, anything you would give to someone else would make them better off. Just because you had the luck of the draw so to speak does that mean everyone should have such luck? Regardless, it’s apparent what people call fair usually means equal shares for all, so you’d do well to keep that in mind when sharing.

Next week we’ll conclude our look at the survey results and implications for you when it comes to understanding how people make decisions.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Decision Making and Rationality – Part 2

2011-06-13T17:30:00.003-04:00

Last week we started looking at data from a recent survey I conducted with readers. The goal of the survey was to analyze how people make decisions. To understand a little more of the survey background take a look at last week’s post. This week we’ll start to get into the meat of the survey and explore some interesting things about decision making.

Question 4 on Survey A had to do with gambling and potential winnings: You have an 80% chance of winning $4000, or 100% chance of winning $3000. Which do you choose?

The vast majority, 74% said they’d take the sure bet at 100% rather than gambling a bit for the $4000. Simple math shows in the long run people will win more risking a little (80% x $4000 = $3200 average winning vs. a sure $3000).

On Survey B, question 4 was essentially the same except it had to do with losing: You’re being sued and you have an 80% chance of losing $4000, or 100% chance of losing $3000. Which do you choose?

In this scenario the same dollar amounts are at stake but when faced with the prospect of a sure loss 56% of people are willing to gamble a little to avoid that sure loss. However, if they play the odds they’ll lose less in the long run by just accepting the $3000 loss.

Here’s the point: Everything I’ve read says people dislike loss more than gain, even when it comes to the same amount. In other words, there’s more pain associated with losing $100 than there is joy in winning or finding $100. When it comes to sales, customers will be more motivated to buy if the sales person talks about what the customer stands to lose as opposed to what they stand to gain should they make the purchase.

In the scenarios I set up we clearly see people don’t want to risk losing out on a sure thing. On the flip side, because they hate losing they’re willing to possibly lose even more for a shot at possibly losing nothing. Both decisions by the majority of people fly in the face of conventional logic which the math clearly shows – gamble for more, take the sure loss. That’s important to understand when you have options to present with different risks associated with each.

I think the psychology being described here also tells us why people hang onto losing stocks longer than they should. Quite often if people see a stock in decline they’d be better off selling it and cutting their losses but all too often, too many hang on because they hate the thought of losing and believe the stock might turn around.

Question 5 on Survey A had to do with saving money: You are at a store considering buying a high-end electronic item for $879. While there you learn you can drive across town and get the same item for $859. Will you make the trip (approx. 30 minutes)?

An overwhelming majority, 87% said they would not make the drive.

On Survey B it was also a question about saving money: You are at a store considering buying an electronic item for $79. While there you learn you can drive across town and get the same item for $59. Will you make the trip (approx. 30 minutes)?

This was almost an even split with 49.0% saying they would make the drive.

Here’s the point: Look at both questions again and you’ll see the savings is the same in both case, $20. I find it interesting that half the people are willing to make the drive to save $20 on a $79 purchase but nearly 9 in 10 said they would not when considering the same savings on a big ticket item. Should the price of the item that’s for sale really matter? Why is saving $20 any less valuable use of time for the big ticket item vs. the lower priced item? If you think about it it’s not rational.

I bet most people reading this would drive across town if they heard someone was giving away $20 bills for free (limit one per person) which is really the same as saving $20. As you can see, much of the response is dictated by the set up and what the $20 is compared to. Free is always a big incentive.

I should also point out that I think the current spike in gas prices impacted the response on the low value purchase. If the savings had been more like $30 or $40 I believe the response would have been up by a good bit but I doubt it would have changed too much on the high value purchase.

One final point of note; I’m willing to bet many people taking the surveys would go well out of the way to save 10-15 cents per gallon on gas which might only amount to $20. Interesting.

We’ll continue our look at decision making in next week’s post as we look at more survey questions.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Decision Making and Rationality – Part 1

2011-06-06T17:30:00.005-04:00

First let me say thanks to all of you who participated in my most recent survey. The results are in and I’ll be sharing the data and my interpretation of the data over the next four posts.

I’m fascinated by the process people go through to make decisions and that’s what my survey was attempting to get at. I’ve enjoyed Dan Ariely’s books, Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality, and his work ties into much of what I’ll be sharing. Another very interesting book on this subject is William Poundstone’s Priceless: The Myth of Fair Value (and How to Take Advantage of It). All three books had a profound impact on my thinking in this area so I decided to see if what I’ve read about would bear out in the real world with my readers.

Before we begin, let me put out this disclaimer: I’m not a social scientist or behavioral economist. This was not a rigorous scientific study, just my attempt to see how people would respond to certain scenarios so I could see how the responses correlated to things I’ve learned over the years. I also need to tell you I’m not a professional surveyor either. I’m learning as I go and point this out because I had a few people contact me because they had issues with certain questions. Sorry if a question or two rubbed you the wrong way but thanks for participating and for taking the time to reach out to me.

The Surveys I asked people to take one of two surveys based on the letter their last name started with. There was no psychology to this. My only goal was to get an even, random split between the two surveys and I accomplished that. As I share the questions you’ll see both surveys were very similar but with slight twists on each question and those twists will be the points of comparison when it comes to decision making. So without further adieu let’s get started.

Question 1 asked the sex of the participant because I was interested to see if there were any significant differences in the answers given by each gender. In case you’re interested, 58% of the people taking Survey A were male and 42% were female. On Survey B it was a 50-50 split which meant the overall split for all participants was 54% male and 46% female.

Question 2 on Survey A people were asked to enter their four-digit birth year while Survey B had people put in their two-digit birth year. That question was only to prime you because many different studies show that mere exposure to words or numbers can change people’s responses and behaviors and I wanted to see if that was the case with those who took my survey when they answered question 3.

In case you’re curious, most people who took the surveys were in their mid-40s. On Survey A the average birth year was close to 1964 and on Survey B the average was 1966.

Question 3 asked, “If you could get paid what you really believe you’re worth (not what you’d love to earn) what annual salary would you ask for?”

Priming would lead me to believe people who entered a four-digit birth year, like 1963, would be subtly influenced to put down a higher salary than those who entered a two-digit year like 63. With 100 responses for each survey those who entered a four-digit birth year thought they were worth $147,413, whereas those who put in a two-digit birth year said they’d ask for $142,775.

I doubt the $4638 spread, a 3.2% difference, is statistically significant. However, what seemed to have influence was the male-female ratio because generally women would ask for a lot less on the salary. The average salary entered by women was $126,005 vs. $161,644 for men. In other words, the men thought they should get 28% more than the women! The average birth year was 1965 for both men and women so it would be hard to explain the difference based on eligible years in the workforce.

Maybe unknowingly the real priming was having participants enter their sex at the start of the survey. I say that because there’s lots of interesting data that shows entering sex or race can impact performance on things like tests. In Asia, entering gender tends lead to lower test scores for women whereas in the U.S., African-Americans scored lower on tests when they had to enter their race. To learn more about that I’ll refer you to the work cited in Malcolm Gladwell’s best seller, Blink.

Here’s the point: What you’re exposed to first can make a big difference in your thinking – good or bad. The first number a realtor or car salesman puts out can have a significant impact on what you ultimately pay. It’s a form of priming called anchoring. Your best defense might be having a firm number (monthly or total) for that dream house or car that you won’t deviate from. And when it comes to race, sex, religion and other factors we’d all do well to understand the preconceived ideas we hold because we might unknowingly be negatively influencing ourselves.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.