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

/0 Comments/by

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

/1 Comment/by

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

/2 Comments/by

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

/3 Comments/by

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

/1 Comment/by

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”.

Influencers from Around the World – Apologies: The Language of Losers or Leaders?

/3 Comments/by

This month’s article is from Hoh Kim, CMCT. Hoh is one only 27 Cialdini Method Certified Trainers in the world. I wish you all had an opportunity to meet Hoh as I did when we got our CMCT designations together several years ago. He has a wonderful, warm, and engaging personality so I know you’d enjoy spending time with him. Being a native of South Korea he gives us a unique perspective on the differences and similarities between the Asian and American cultures when it comes to influence and persuasion. I know you’ll enjoy what he has to share this week.

Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.
Apologies: The Language of Losers or Leaders?
One of Dr. Cialdini’s six principles of influence is authority which tells us people say “Yes” to people who have authority or expertise. That’s why people care about professional titles, academic degrees, and awards. But, this is not the whole story. According to Dr. Cialdini, to have authority, you need two things: expertise and trustworthiness. Most people know how to build expertise in their area with education, professional experiences, degrees, etc. But what about trustworthiness? Dr. Cialdini says one way it can be gained is by how you communicate your weaknesses, rather than strengths. Credible people share their weaknesses first before others and quite often competitors do. I’ve been helping corporate executives learn how to communicate in crisis situations such as product recalls, scandals, etc. In my field there’s a term know as the “paradox of transparency” and it perfectly aligns with Dr. Cialdini’s theory about authority. According to the paradox, when a company makes a mistake or wrongdoing, they have a tendency to behave in a “non-transparent” manner, such as keeping a silence or lie. However, these “non-transparent” approaches make their crisis situation worse, not better. So, they “add” more tags like “liar” or “not responsible” to an already bad situation. It is a paradox since transparency helps, not hurts, the wrongdoers. Crisis management is not about covering up what happened; rather it’s about what you do with what happened. People pay attention how you behave after you make a mistake. Since 2008, I’ve been studying public apologies of leaders in the PhD program at KAIST (Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology), and recently, I published a book call Cool Apology (in Korean language) which was co-authored with my advisor, Dr. Jaeseung Jeong. While studying apologies I realized it is a language of authority and trustworthiness. Back in 2007, I met Doug Wojcieszak in St. Louis. He is the founder of Sorry Works! Coalition. They’ve been actively spreading a “disclosure” program, which applies apologies in managing medical malpractice. In the past, when there was a medical malpractice case, hospitals often took “deny and defend” approaches which usually ended up in painful lawsuits. Harvard, Stanford, the universities of Virginia and Michigan, and Johns Hopkins all took different approaches. They transparently investigated the incidents and if there were any mistakes they provide apologies to victims, or their family members, and compensated them fairly. The results? In the Michigan hospitals, where the disclosure program was introduced in 2001, claims and lawsuits numbered 262 in a single year. However, after six years the number had dropped significantly, to just 83! At the University of Illinois hospital there were 37 cases where medical doctors transparently disclosed their errors and apologized and only one patient filed a lawsuit. For a story on this click here. Apologies reduce lawsuits and even save money, but what about leadership? In 2006 Tucker et al., published a paper “apologies and transformational leadership” in the Journal of Business Ethics. They ran experiments to measure how people view their bosses’ leadership when the boss apologizes and when they don’t. They found that leaders who apologized when they made a mistake consistently got higher leadership scores. Right apologies strengthen your leadership. Now you might wonder how to best apologize. It will help you to know different languages of apologies. For further reading I recommend Five Languages of Apology by Gary Chapman. Let me briefly share with you the six languages:

  1. Regret – “I am sorry”
  2. Account – “I am sorry for being late”
  3. Responsibility – “It was my mistake”
  4. Repetition – “I wouldn’t do it again”
  5. Recovery – compensation or actions to recover
  6. Forgiveness – “Will you forgive me?”

You can choose different languages in different situations but try to include regret, account, and responsibility at a minimum when you want to apologize. If you have a boss and he or she makes a mistake with you what would you expect? “Ignore and deny” or “apologize and recover?” I think the answer is obvious. Apologies are the language of losers when leaders hide their mistakes, but now we live in the age of Twitter, the iPhone, and WikiLeaks. You no longer can hide your mistakes so it’s becoming critical to communicate your mistakes. Apology is becoming the language of leaders in the 21st century. Hoh Kim, CMCT

Cialdini’s Principles of Influence Applied to Social Media

/0 Comments/by

I just finished Jeffery Gitomer’s latest book, Social Boom. I’m a Gitomer fan and although the book was very basic I thought it was still pretty good nonetheless. It’s not a “how to” book on detailed things you can do with different social media sites. There are plenty of “how to” books out there to help you in those areas. Gitomer’s focus is more about the strategic use of different social media tools to build your brand and business. The best book I’ve read to date on social media was Trust Agents by Chris Brogan and Julien Smith. I liked the book because the authors tap into many different principles of influence as ways to build your networks. That makes sense because social media is about people reaching out and connecting with one another and whenever people are involved an understanding of human psychology is helpful. Because I know many of you who check in on my blog regularly don’t enjoy reading as much as I do it’s a safe bet the vast majority of you won’t be running out to by a copy Trust Agents or Social Boom anytime soon. However, I know many of you enjoy learning tips that can help you get more out of your social media experience. So here are a few basics ways you can use the principles of influence to get more bang for your buck. Liking is the principle that tells us people prefer to say “Yes” to those they know and like. To engage liking in social media, here are two simple things to focus on – similarities and compliments. When you try to connect with someone it can be as simple as putting a personal message that highlights something you have in common in a Facebook friend request. I have many Facebook friends around the world because of this principle. I got those friends because I reached out to many of Dr. Cialdini’s Facebook friends and when I did so I included a personal message to let them know I knew him and was a one of his trainers. He was our connection or similarity if you will. Compliments are easy to use also. If you’re trying to connect on LinkedIn a personal message is the preferable way to go, also, rather than the standard, “I’d like to add you to my professional network.” In your message include something that you admire or appreciate about that person, letting them know that’s part of the reason you’re reaching out, and the odds they’ll accept your request will go way up. Reciprocity is the principle that describes the reality that we feel obligated to give back the same form of behavior first given to us. For example, on Twitter quite often simply choosing to follow someone will lead them to follow you in return. That’s why most people’s “Following” and “Followers” numbers are so close. I don’t advocate following everyone just because they followed you first but the vast majority of following happens that way. One other way to engage this principle is to reach out to others to help them. Whatever you have in terms of time, talent or expertise, look for ways to give some of that away because those who avail themselves will naturally want to help you when you need it. Consensus lets us know people feel comfortable following the crowd because generally there’s safety in numbers. When we see someone has thousands, or tens of thousands, of Twitter followers, or 500+ LinkedIn connections that sets in the minds of many that those are people worth following. If that wasn’t the case then why would so many others connect with them? Regularly working whatever networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Cinch, etc.) you’re on will eventually pay dividends because the more people who are connected to you the more others want to be connected too. Be patient because it can be like a snowball rolling down a hill. It takes time to see the snowball grow but once it gets going watch out! Authority highlights the reality that people like to follow the advice of experts. What is your expertise? Do you highlight it somehow on your social media networks? If you aren’t then you need to start because it gives people a reason to want to connect with you. Until a several years ago I was like many other sales trainers but my passion for influence and persuasion led me to go deeper in that particular area. Now that I’ve started blogging, people in more than 160 countries have taken time to read what I write. When that fact is shared it’s amazing the instant credibility with others. Consistency is the principle of persuasion that tells us people feel psychological pressure to behave consistently with what they’ve previously said or done. The key to tapping into this principle is either knowing what someone has said or done in the past or getting them to commit to you in some way. Getting them to commit to you is easy to do because all it takes is asking questions. Sometimes the person will say no to your request but when they say yes the odds that they’ll follow through go up significantly. So if you need help, ask people. You’ll be surprised at the number that will do so because social media is about connecting, helping and growing. Scarcity describes the reality that people want what they can’t have or what they perceive to be rare. For me something that I can highlight to tap into scarcity is the fact that only about two dozen people in the world are certified to teach influence and persuasion on behalf of Dr. Cialdini. When people learn that fact it makes them more curious and they naturally to want to engage me. What do you have that makes you rare, unique or different? Get that out there and it will make more people want to connect with you. This is a very brief overview of how you can use the psychology of persuasion to make your time and effort in social media more worthwhile. Hopefully you’ll find the tips useful. If you’ve seen how you’ve successfully used some of the principles in your social media circles please leave a comment so we can learn from you.Brian, CMCT
influencepeople
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Consensus or Authority? Fad or Fact Might be the Difference

/4 Comments/by

Ever since Abigail was little we’ve had a tradition of going to Panera Bread for some good food, drink and father-daughter talk. We usually each get sesame seed bagels with butter but she likes her bagel warmed up in the microwave whereas I prefer mine toasted. She’s my kid but we are a little different.

A few weeks ago we stopped by Panera for lunch before Abigail headed to watch her high school play. As we ate and talked she was telling me about a book she was reading for her youth group, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teenagers. I was interested to hear what she had to say because The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People is one the most impacting books I’ve ever read. She informed me that adults who write books for teens just don’t get it. I asked why and she went on to say, “If kids did all the things adults told us to do we wouldn’t be kids, we’d just be little adults.” You can imagine the interesting conversation ensued.

Our time together got me thinking about motivating people to change their behavior, and in particular I was thinking about teens. I suspect every person reading this is familiar with the phrase “peer pressure.” It’s just a different term for what is known more commonly as consensus or social proof in psychology. Whatever you call it here’s what it describes; to varying degrees we all look to others to find our cues on how to behave. In other words, we are influence by the power of the crowd. And when people are unsure of what to do consensus becomes an even more powerful tool to persuade others with.

Another principle of influence that comes into play when there’s uncertainty is the principle of authority. When we’re not sure what to do quite often we look for the advice of those who are more knowledgeable than we are. More often than not following the lead of experts helps our decision making.

What Abigail seemed to be saying in a roundabout way was teens don’t necessarily look to adults – authorities – on how to live and act. She’s right, teens take most of their cues from each other and that’s why when we were young mom or dad would ask us, “If everyone else was [fill in the blank] would you?” And we all knew the right answer, “No mom, I wouldn’t [fill in the blank] just because everyone else is.”

Quite often people ask me, “If consensus and authority both apply when there’s uncertainty is one better than the other when it comes to persuasion?” My answer is a firm, “Yes, but it depends.”

In general, if there are facts and stats from experts that apply to the situation you’re facing then bringing authority to bear is probably the right call because it’s hard to argue with empirical data. However, if the situation is more a question of taste or preference then you’d do well to look for ways to bring consensus into the conversation because people feel more comfortable doing what others are doing.

For example, when it comes to investing your money you’re probably better off asking what financial advisors have to say rather than what the neighbors are doing. Consensus will still be a motivator but not nearly as strong for most people as is the word of an authority.

Another example might be fashion. When it comes to fads what everyone else is doing or wearing will be more persuasive for most people as opposed to talking about what a particular fashion designer or magazine has to say. Again, it’s not that those authorities won’t impact decision making. They certainly could but they’re not likely to be as motivating as consensus.

Back to Abigail and books for teens; what should authors do? Why not collaborate with teens to produce something for teens? The authority could give some guidance but by and large the material would come from peers. As adults we were all teens and our desire is good – we want to help teens avoid some of the mistakes we made. The problem is kids think we don’t understand them because, “You were a teenager like a million years ago!”

Here’s my advice – don’t fight the wave, look for ways to ride it safely to shore. That comes with understanding who you’re trying to persuade and which principles will be most effective. Start looking for ways to do that and it’s a good bet you’ll enjoy more success than you currently do.

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

Influence for Professional and Personal Success

/0 Comments/by

I’ve been very busy lately, lots of travel and presentations revolving around influence and persuasion. Several weeks ago I was in Chicago for the NAMIC (National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies) Personal Lines Convention. I followed that up with at trip to Penn State University where I got to address members of the Keystone Insurers Group. Next it was a small business owner’s event hosted by EasyIT in my hometown, Columbus, Ohio. As you read this it’s very likely I’m in Milbank, S.D., training State Auto field people. Then I’m off to Greensboro, N.C., next week for another Keystone conference. I get to finally catch my breath in late May!

When I address groups to talk about influence, early on I let them know I’m passionate about the subject for a couple reasons. First and foremost, I’ve seen the application of the principles of influence lead to success for me personally as well as for people I’ve trained. When an insurance agent tells me they landed a large account after trying for three years because they used what I taught them or another says they applied what they learned and it worked like magic you can understand we all feel pretty darn good.

Another reason I’m passionate about influence and persuasion is because understanding and ethically applying the principles of influence will not only help your career, it can help your personal life as well. After all, when you leave work you’re still interacting with people and quite often you’re making requests of them, hoping to hear, “yes!” Lots of training programs can help you succeed on the job but not too many can promise to make you better away from the office too.

Aristotle, a pretty smart guy, said persuasion was, “the art of getting someone to do something they wouldn’t ordinarily do if you didn’t ask.” That’s a pretty solid definition. After all, if someone is already doing what you want then there’s no need to ask, no need to persuade. The problem is, too often they’re not doing what you’d like. The challenge for you is how to make your request.

I would differ from Aristotle on one point; art vs. science. My definition of persuasion would, “the science of getting someone to do something they wouldn’t ordinarily do if you didn’t ask.” Social psychologists have been studying the science of influence for more than six decades now. Based in the vast research we know there are better ways – “Best Practices,” if you will – when it comes to making requests of others.

I’m not a social psychologist; I’m a sales coach and sales trainer. I immerse myself in books dealing with psychology with an eye towards how to take what I’m learning and apply it to the real world – professionally and personally. If you’ve followed this blog for any length of time then you know I write primarily about business applications but also devote a good deal to personal issues like parenting. I do this because I so clearly see the principles of influence helping in both areas.

Fortunately for me most people don’t know much about the science and are eager to learn. I opened by saying I’ve been on the road a lot lately and something caught my eye during my travels that I want to share with all of you as a clear way of demonstrating the application of influence could make a big difference.

I recently stayed at a hotel conference center called The Penn Stater. When I walked into my room I noticed a placard in the bathroom that encouraged guests to consider reusing towels to help the environment. That’s a worthy cause but unfortunately the hotel bungled away an opportunity to move more people towards that environmentally friendly action.

I wrote about a similar situation two years ago in an article called Cruising Along with Influence just after taking a Royal Caribbean vacation. Neither Royal Caribbean nor The Penn Stater took advantage of the science that tells us there are more effective ways to change behavior than just appealing to saving the environment for future generations.

A study was conducted on this very subject in an attempt to determine the most effective messaging to get hotel guests to reuse their towels on their first night staying at the hotel. In the study, door hangers were used just like they were with Royal Caribbean and The Penn Stater. In the study one door hanger used a message with only an environmental appeal, “Help Save the Environment,” followed by information on the importance of the environment. Going green is prominent today so that message was somewhat effective and towel reuse went up 37.2%.

A second message was tested, one that engaged the principle of consensus. The principle of consensus tells us people’s actions are influence by what others are doing. This door hanger read, “Join Your Fellow Guests in Helping Save the Environment.” Below the heading it mentioned 75% of guests had participated in the new towel reuse program at some point during their stay. This message was much more effective because towel reuse rate was 44.0% on the first night.

In slight variation of that second door hanger another message was tested, one that stated 75% of the guests in that particular room had participated. When that message was used the towel reuse went up to 49%! That’s nearly a 33% increase over the environmentally friendly message just because a few words were changed. If you knew you could change your message – at no cost – and get a 33% increase in response wouldn’t that be the smart thing to do?

This is just one simple example of how theory becomes practice. There’s no guarantee you’ll get the same boost as studies show but it’s almost guaranteed you’ll get better results than you’re currently getting because the science says so. And who knows, you might get lucky and have even better results!

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

Influencers from Around the World – Split Second Selling

/0 Comments/by

If you’ve been a reader of Influence PEOPLE for any length of time Sean Patrick is a familiar name to you. Sean is my good friend from Ireland who is in the sales training arena like I am. Sean is going to give you insight into Split Second Selling in this month’s Influencers from Around the World Series.

If you’d like get to know Sean there are many ways: visit his website, Sean Patrick Training, take a look at his blog, Professional Persuader, or look for him on Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter.
Brian, CMCT
influencepeopleHelping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.
Split Second Selling
Whether you know me as a sales trainer or not doesn’t matter, what matters is whether you’re reading this to be entertained, to see how laughable the content is or to scan read for a take-away that you can implement into your daily routine.
As some of you know, I write my own blog and articles for various other blogs. I am often asked to write for other people. And if you already follow me then you’ll know the content I deliver is very “niche,” to the point and content rich. This one is going to be a little different. In fact this article is going to nail one point directly and very firmly on the head in a simple, easy to grasp language that even a non-English speaking tourist from Mars could understand.
This little nugget is highly effective for people who cold call or who have to prospect for a living. As some of you already know, I am a hardened prospector and very much a relationship type of sales guy. For those of you who sit on the same bench as me, you’re in for a serious free money making and kick-ass tip you’re going to want to use. You’d be hard pushed to actually find a social media trainer who would know how to teach you this. Read on for what I believe is a very important tip about LinkedIn!
Here’s how to use LinkedIn and get appointments so you can exponentially close more business by using reciprocity.
  1. Target your contacts; e.g., HR, FD, CEO, CIO, etc.
  2. Research your contacts perceived pain points and vertical market trends
  3. Grab a piece of paper and write out a quick two sentence introduction that you can insert into the friend request that is relevant to person and pain point (hence the research)
  4. Now think about what you can give to them that is relevant to your research in order for them to increase the likelihood of saying YES to your following request.
  5. Send friend requests to each and every contact you wish to do business with while ensuring you insert your offer to give in order to receive; e.g., Whitepaper, invitation to a breakfast briefing but make sure the gift is relevant.
  6. When you have identified your new contacts (the ones that came back to you), repeat, but this time asking for their work email address. See examples below of how I use this effectively and tell them you have more important information to share. By this time, this is when I start receiving DDI and cell numbers to have actual selling conversations, but go to the next step when this doesn’t happen for you.
  7. Once I have sent at least two emails to my target contacts, I then proceed to call those contacts that hadn’t come back to me. I remind them on the call that I am the person who sent them valuable information that I thought pertinent to share with them and ask them straight out when they can book a time to either see me or commit to a phone call. Before I end the call, I repeat our next appointment out loud and ask them for the last time if this is definitely OK with them.
Here are a few examples of what I’m talking about.
Are you interested to find out how companies who have discovered X, have benefited from Y that has given them Z. Please add me if interested
I would like to offer you a white paper on how companies like yours have benefitted from X! Please add me if you want to learn how. Please ignore if not appropriate or add me to find out.
I’m currently networking with people similar to you that work within your vertical because I can give you new information on how to X that results in Y.
Just a quick note to point out that our objective is not to increase our LinkedIn network, although this will happen anyway. Our objective is to get to the person we want to sell to, either face to face or via the phone. This little tip is a cold call “killer!” Now, for those of you people who are lucky enough to be in the B2C space, this same principle works even better and without the need for LinkedIn.
Whenever you make a cold call, frame your call so that you are there to help the other person, recognise their voice patterns if they are harassed or busy, and tell them you can give them a couple of days to think about it. Then tell them how they can help you either by referring you to others or by finding out if they actually need to buy from you. You know what it’s like to be frazzled and hassled and can call back in two days time in order to help them out.
Repeat above method of gaining commitment by gaining mutual agreement before the call is ended.
Voila, no cold calls, thanks to Mr. Cialdini and his fabulous principle of reciprocity with a little dose of commitment and consistency thrown in for good measure.
Sean
————————-
Survey Still Open – if you’d like to participate in a 10 question survey you still have time. Results will be shared later this month.
  • If your last name starts with a letter between A and I click here for your survey: Survey A
  • If your last name starts with a letter between J and Z click here for your survey: Survey B
Thanks!
Brian, CMCT