Tag Archive for: consensus

The Most Valuable Real Estate

/0 Comments/by
Living in Central Ohio, golf isn’t the first sport you think of, but thanks to legends like Jack Nicklaus, aka the “Golden Bear,” our courses are hidden gems scattered around Columbus and its suburbs.

As I reminisced at the Memorial Golf Tournament this year, a thought struck me—sometimes, the game’s outcome isn’t about the physical distance covered by the ball, but rather those crucial six inches between our ears.

Jack Nicklaus, who has won a record 18 majors, is not just a testament to physical skill but mental mastery. The real estate I’m talking about isn’t the fairway—it’s the mind. In golf, as in professional life, the true game unfolds in the mental landscape.

At this tournament, watching a pro miss a straightforward putt reminded me how each swing, each decision counts. The winner often surpasses the runner-up by a mere one or two strokes—a fraction of a percentage that decides victory. So, what makes the difference? It’s how one handles the mental pressure, the adverse moments.

The Mind: Your Battlefield for Influence

This concept translates seamlessly into persuasion, especially in professional settings where we’re often stuck in old patterns or firm beliefs. Here are a few tactics, drawing from the subtle art of persuasion, that can shift outcomes in your favor:

Liking: A simple, deserved compliment could be all it takes for someone to favor you more, increasing your persuasive pull.

Reciprocity: Small acts of genuine help can foster a sense of obligation, nudging others to return the favor, possibly aiding in your next project completion or deal closure.

Authority: Displaying credentials upfront enhances credibility, making your propositions more persuasive.

Social Proof: Mentioning what other people, those most similar to the person you’re talking to, are doing makes it easier for people to follow your lead.

Consistency: Encouraging someone to agree to small initial requests increases the likelihood they will stick to bigger commitments.

Scarcity: Highlighting the limited availability of an offer can spur action, a principle as effective in business as it is in psychology.

Winning with Ethical Influence

Understanding these principles doesn’t just potentially enhance your professional relationships and outcomes—it aligns with ethical influence, ensuring you’re respecting others’ autonomy and creating win-win scenarios. Like employing a sports psychologist may not guarantee a win every time, using these principles wisely isn’t about manipulation; it’s about improving your odds ethically.

Your mental agility plays a crucial role, not just in sports but in every professional interaction. Each conversation, each meeting is your playing field, and how you engage your mind determines whether you merely play the game or change it.

What methods do you find most effective for influencing change in your professional interactions?

Edited with ChatGPT and reposted 4/26/24

Brian Ahearn

Brian Ahearn, CMCT®
Chief Influence Officer
influencePEOPLE 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

 

Ancient Survival and Modern Day Complexities

/0 Comments/by

The more I teach others about persuasion, the more clearly I see the principles of influence as a survival tool. Not only did they help our ancestors live day to day, but they also help us deal with the complexities of life in this information-overloaded society in which we live.

Let’s consider the principles in relation to our ancestors.

Liking – One way to engage liking is through similarity. In ancient times someone who looked like you was probably friendly whereas someone who looked different might be an enemy. It became easier to trust those with whom you could quickly tell you had something in common.

Reciprocity – If someone helped you it would be wise to help him or her when the opportunity presented itself because you never knew when you might need his or her help again.

Consensus – There’s safety in numbers so it was probably a good survival bet to go along with the crowd instead of opposing it. If everyone was in favor of some action your optimal choice was to go along with the group or you’d find yourself ostracized.

Authority – We place a lot of confidence in those with superior wisdom and knowledge. It paid to go along with the leader’s direction because opposition could end your life in a multitude of ways. Consistency – To do what you promised would gain you favor most of the time. In turn you learned to rely on those with a track record of coming through as expected whether it was on the farm or on the battlefield.

Scarcity – When good opportunities, like food and drink, came along it was a wise choice to take advantage of the opportunity because you never knew if such an opportunity would come around again.

In the modern world we may not have life and death decisions very often but the principles help us keep our sanity. In my presentations I like to share a quote from William C. Taylor’s article Permission Marketing, which was written for the magazine Fast Company.

“This year, the average consumer will see or hear one million marketing messages – that’s almost 3,000 per day.”

Can anyone possibly take in 3,000 marketing messages every day, sort through them all, weigh the pros and cons and make the best rational decision? Of source not! You’d need a supercomputer to do that. But here’s a scary thought – Taylor’s quote is more than 25 years old! A more recent article on the New York Times, Anywhere the Eye Can See, It’s Likely to See an Ad, puts the number of daily marketing messages we’re exposed to closer to 5,000!

To help us deal with the complexities of modern life we use the principles of influence as mental shortcuts. They help us wade through all the noise and when we hear something that resonates with us quite often that’s all we need to make a quick, satisfactory decision.

Liking – A friend tells you the company they used to put in their new kitchen floor and after a few questions you like what you hear so you decide to call the company for a quote. That saves a lot of time because you don’t have to do a lot of research.

Reciprocity – You do something that’s helpful, something another person truly appreciates. You sense they appreciate you and believe you want the best for them. It’s only natural for him or her to say, “Yes” if you need their help in return. Now you’re building relationship.

Consensus – If everyone is doing it then it must be worth considering. After all, quite often the wisdom of the crowd is better than a few smart people. Therefore, best-selling items can usually be relied on over new products or services.

Authority – With the crush of modern life it’s easier to turn to accountants for our taxes, lawyers for legal questions and doctors for our health. We find it easier to pay these people for their expertise because it gives us time to focus on things we’re good at and things that are more important to us.

Consistency – As society becomes more inter-dependent we rely on each other. A big part of the reliability is banking on someone doing what they said they would. We may be more pleased with a “steady Eddie” worker over the person who sometimes does great work and other times does poor work or misses deadlines.

Scarcity – “Sale ends Sunday” is a classic. We don’t want to lose out on the possibility of a great deal so we get off the couch and get to the store before the end of the weekend. Much of the time this is an open door for us to get better deals.

So there you have a comparison of the principles of influence in ancient versus modern-day survival. They don’t explain all of human behavior but if you pay attention you’ll see they do explain an awful lot of why people do what they do. Look for ways to tap into them ethically and correctly and you’re sure to be a more effective persuader.

Brian Ahearn, CMCT®
Chief Influence Officer

influencePEOPLE 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.
 

Influencers from Around the World – Hardwired Humans

/0 Comments/by
This month our
Influencers from Around the World guest post comes from Anthony McLean,
Australia’s one and only Cialdini Method
Certified Trainer (CMCT®). We owe Anthony special
thanks for taking time to share with us because his busy schedule last month included
a trip to the States to meet with Dr. Cialdini. I know you’ll enjoy what
Anthony has to share.
Brian Ahearn, CMCT® 
Chief Influence Officer
influencePEOPLE 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.
Hardwired Humans
Why would
a Global Healthcare company like Philips undertake a change management program in
a zoo? The answer is they were following research revealed in Andrew O’Keefe’s book
Hardwired Humans.
In
Australia/New Zealand, Philips had undergone four change programs in as many
years preceding the unexpected global change program announced in 2009. Managing
director Harry van Dyk and HR director Jo Hilyard admitted the company was
suffering from “change fatigue” and a vastly different approach was required to
that used previously.
What
happened next was a little unexpected for many. Philips took 30 of its leaders
to Taronga Zoo in Sydney for a workshop that introduced them to the role basic
human instincts play in the workplace. The workshop looked at nine hardwired
instincts of humans and the leadership implications including the management of
change. In one part of the program the leaders were addressed by The Jane Goodall Institute and its chimpanzee program to demonstrate the social and
hierarchical structure off chimpanzees and the implications this has for modern
business. Unexpectedly for the participants they discovered the comparisons
between chimp and human social structures were numerous and provided a whole
new perspective on resolving workplace challenges.
One of
the key insights was that the conventional wisdom that claims people resist
change is wrong. We learned that humans, rather than being resistant to change,
are actually hardwired to avoid loss. Upon hearing about a change people
instantly screen their environment for the risk of loss. If we detect loss, we
resist the change. If we detect gain, we support the change. If we are unsure
about the impact of the change (and this is the big swinger), then we assume
loss. This means that for organizational change we often have people
unnecessarily erring toward loss and resistance, merely because people were
unable to make sense of the impact of the change for them at the moment they
first learned of it. (HR Monthly,
March 2011, p30)
The Persuasion Implications
The implications
for persuaders are clear. Through scarcity, we know that loss framing
is more persuasive than focusing on the benefits of a thing. The final part of
the above quote is very important because it highlights that under conditions in
which the risk cannot be assessed the subject will assume loss if they have no
other means to assess the risk.
You may
say great, scarcity is at play without you having to do anything to get people
to take action. In reality the targets of influence, under this assumed loss,
will employ coping mechanisms and strategies to protect themselves from that
loss rather than take healthy proactive workplace behaviours.
For example,
in a change management project if the targets of influence assume loss because
they have no other basis to assess the risk, they will then react against the
project, at times for no other reason than they associate loss (i.e., of
position, status, pay, etc.) with the project itself.
Anyone
who has managed a change project will tell you the reluctance at times seems
unnecessary and ill informed; now you understand that it is a hardwired
response to the subjects’ inability to assess risk, so they assume loss and
react accordingly.
Steps to Counter Perceived Loss
If we
know that people scan for loss in any situation before moving forward, it makes
sense to manage this situation and brief the relevant staff fully on managing
the default towards loss and reacting against the situation unnecessarily. By
providing this briefing it is more likely to trigger reciprocity because you as the
change agent have given them the information they require to assess the risk
for themselves. Potentially it may even increase liking if you are then
required to work together and you have already opened up the channel for
cooperation. The warning however is, that left unattended to the development of
a loss aversion mindset, this reaction may cause the audience to take a stand
and trigger consistency, towards the negative
and this could be all the momentum that is required to drive consensus in the wrong direction.
So ask
yourself these questions: 
1. What risk is involved in your project, service or request? 
2. Is it real or perceived?
If the targets
of influence are unable to assess the personal risk of loss for themselves
(i.e., the risk is not clear or able to be easily understood), they will most
likely assume loss and react against you and your project, service or request.
Brief the
targets of influence appropriately so they can adequately assess the
risk from an informed position and give yourself every chance of success
rather than having to start the influence process on the back foot. It may also
be prudent to lobby support from others who already understand the project and
during the briefing ask them to discuss the implications for their business area
and support for the change. This simple step uses consensus to show others are
already moving in the direction of the project not away from it and as we know
when we are unsure of what we should do we look to the behaviour of others like
us to guide our decisions.

Cheers!
Anthony McLean, CMCT® 


Sources: 
From A to
Zoo, HR Monthly March 2011 p28-30
O’Keefe,
A (2011) Hardwired Humans Roundtable
Press.

5 Cues to Consider When Trying to Influence Someone’s Habits

/0 Comments/by
I recently watched a very interesting interview with Charles Duhigg, the author of The Power of Habit. I read the book
several years ago and was fascinated by the subject matter and scientific
research Duhigg shared throughout the book. Watching his interview renewed my
interest in the subject and started me thinking about how habits and influence
intersect.
I’ve personally seen how forming good habits
can be extremely beneficial. As a teenager I got in the habit of working out
because I wanted to get in shape for football. The habit of weightlifting
stayed with me because I enjoyed it and I eventually I added running to my
fitness mix. For decades my days have consisted of getting up very early to
read, then workout or run. For me that morning habit is as regular as eating
breakfast or showering before work. Duhigg would call this a “keystone” habit
because it positively affects other things I do. For example; in addition to
being a little smarter and more fit, by the time I get to work I feel ready to
tackle just about anything because of my morning routine.
The great thing about habits is they remove the
burden of thinking. That frees us up to devote energy to other items competing
for our attention. If you pause for a moment to consider your habits you’ll
probably realize almost all of them occur with little or no thought. When
habits are good that’s wonderful. However, when habits are poor it can be tough
to change them.
As a persuader it’s important that you
understand this because quite often you’re not looking to persuade someone into
a one-time behavioral change. After all, you don’t want to have to persuade
your child every day to do their homework do you? If you’re the boss at work
you don’t want to have the same conversation over and over to influence an
employee to show up on time, do you? Wouldn’t it be great if those behavioral changes
took hold and were lasting? It’s my goal to help you learn how to Influence
PEOPLE into lasting change.
Let’s look at the example of trying to
persuade an employee to show up to work on time. You could use every principle of
influence in this effort.

Liking – Appeal to the
relationship you have with them and ask them to do a personal favor for you and
start showing up on time.
Reciprocity – Leverage something
you’ve done for the person in the past by referencing it and asking for their help
in return.
Consensus – Let them know
everyone else makes it to work on time so there’s no reason they shouldn’t also.
Authority – While not always
advisable, you can reference you’re the boss and this is the expectation.
However, beware that playing on your positional authority can cause resentment
and that usually doesn’t lead to lasting change.
Consistency – After having some
conversation about why they’re late so often ask them if they’ll commit to
start showing up on time rather than telling them that’s what they need to do.
Scarcity – There is probably a
downside to continually showing up late – no bonus opportunity, no raise,
possibly losing their job – so appealing to this potential loss is certainly an
option.

In The
Power of Habit, Duhigg shares scientific research that every habit has
three parts: a cue, the routine and a reward. The cue is the trigger that
starts the routine and it’s almost always one of five things:
  1. A certain location (some people only smoke in bars)
  2. Time of day (morning prompts many to exercise)
  3. An emotional state (loneliness causes some to drink)
  4. Other people (someone who pushes your buttons)
  5. An action that immediately precedes the routine (this could be a
    song triggering memories).

The reward can be many things – pleasure, pain
avoidance, feeling better about one’s self, feeling a sense of control, etc.
Remember, we all get something out of our habits, even those that appear
self-destructive.

In some cases your attempts to change
someone’s behavior can be very difficult because old habits die hard. In fact, Duhigg
suggests, based on research, that you never really get rid of old habits, you
only replace or change them. This is why so many smokers gain weight when they
try to quit because they replace their smoking routine with eating when their
cues trigger them.
In the case of the late employee, you know
it’s possible for them to get to work on time because the vast majority of
people do it every day, even those who might have more hectic and stressful
home lives than your chronically late employee. So what are you to do?
You can help them identify the triggers that
tend to make them late. For some people time is like money – they’ll use up every
last penny or every last minute no matter how much extra time or money they may
have. So getting up a little earlier may not be the solution.
Help the person establish a new cue that will
allow them to get to work with at least 10 minutes to spare. That could be
another alarm clock going off, the coffee maker brewing a cup of coffee for
their drive in or something else that alerts the person it’s time to stop everything and head to the car.
If it’s a spouse or kids that are part of the
problem then the person needs to let them suffer their own consequences for
getting up late, not coming to breakfast on time or whatever else it might be.
That won’t be easy but if they don’t do that they’ll forever be a slave to
other people’s behavior and they, not the others, will pay the cost.
The principles of influence can certainly come
into play when you have this conversation with the employee. The conversation
turns from “You need to get to work on time” to “How can I help you figure out
what you need to do in order to get to work on time?” The more principles you
use in that conversation the more success you’re likely to have.
Brian Ahearn, CMCT®
Chief Influence Officer
influencePEOPLE 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.




Cialdini “Influence”
Series! Would you like to learn more about
influence from the experts? Check out the Cialdini “Influence” Series featuring Cialdini
Method Certified Trainers from around the world.

 

Influencers from Around the World – Three Keys to Consider when Negotiating with the Chinese

/0 Comments/by
Marco Germani has been guest writing for
Influence PEOPLE for four years. He’s written his own book on persuasion and
applies the principles of influence daily as he travels the world selling wine.
I encourage you to reach out to Marco on Facebook
and LinkedIn.
Brian Ahearn, CMCT®
Chief Influence Officer
influencePEOPLE 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.
 
Three
Keys to Consider when Negotiating with the Chinese
A few years ago I attended an influence workshop
put on by Robert Cialdini, Ph.D., where the last part of the seminar was
dedicated to applying the principles of persuasion to different cultures around
the world. My understanding was the principles were immutable and universally
accepted all over the planet but in fact Dr. Cialdini explained that in
different cultures some principles are much more effective than others.

 

As an export manager in the wine business,
spending over 70% of my time traveling around the world and making deals, I
started to pay attention to this aspect and I realized that Dr. Cialdini was
absolutely right! What works in Italy is sometimes less effective in Germany or
in South Korea, and the best way to carry out negotiations in the United States
could be totally ineffective in Japan.
 In this week’s post I would like to focus on
China, a country which I’ve had the chance to visit many times over the past
seven years and which can be considered one of a kind in many aspects,
including the way Chinese negotiate and persuade. This subject could be very
vast but I would like to point out three main differences in the Chinese way of
negotiating because this understanding can make a big difference if you ever
find yourself doing business in China.
1. The
concept of “face” (Mian Zi)
“Losing face” is considered one of the worst
things that can happen to a Chinese person. Being diminished or worse, ridiculed,
in front of others, is the ultimate humiliation in China and this must always
be taken into account when negotiating. If yielding to your conditions could
even remotely generate the feeling that your counterpart was wrong, proposed
something inconsistent, or that makes him clearly “lose the game” when
negotiating, the deal simply will not happen. This extension of the principle
of social proof is a very sensitive subject in Asia and Chinese people in
particular seem to care about it even more.
A Chinese boss would never criticize or
admonish a subordinate in front of others, as this would cause him to lose
face. When bargaining in a street market a Chinese vendor would prefer to lose
the sale rather than accept your first price.
Taking this into account means always giving a
way out to your counterpart in order to help him “save face.” It is surprising
how many Westerns ignore this point and have trouble negotiating with the Chinese.
If the negotiation is seen as a battle, in which a party wins and the other
loses, in China the two parties are almost always bound to lose simultaneously.
The “win-win” concept introduced by the late Stephen Covey in his best seller The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People is
more relevant in China than elsewhere. It can be the deal maker or deal breaker,
whether in a business or personal negotiation with a Chinese individual.
2. The
concept of relationship (Guan-xi)
Business IS all about relationships and
everybody knows it. In the newest edition of The Pyramid of Sale by Brian Tracy and other renowned sales
trainers contend that the pyramid base is building relationships and trust with
the customers, whereas in the past it was the presentation of the product.
In China this concept goes even further. The
nearly untranslatable word  “guan-xi”
literally means “network of relationships” but it has a deeper meaning,
including how well you are perceived by influential people in your network and
how you are able to help your business counterparts network with the influential
people you know.
When starting to negotiate with a Chinese
person, the fact that you have common friends, or the fact that you have relationships
with relevant people who might turn out to be useful to your counterpart, can
give you a huge advantage. I consider this an extension of the principle of liking
even though it has a deeper and subtler meaning.
The skilled negotiator, when entering into a
discussion with a Chinese person, will take care to inform the other of the influential
people he knows or has business relationships with, letting the other
understand that, if the deal between the two of them is made, this influential
network will be put at his disposal as a natural consequence of starting a
partnership.  The problem with this
attitude, which is widely used by Chinese people when negotiating with
Westerns, is this; the information shared is seldom accurate and often purely
instrumental to get a vantage point in the discussion.
Let’s pretend I am trying to sell wine to a
dealer in China. He might state that, if I accept his conditions and start a
partnership with him, that he would introduce me to his best friend, the buyer
of the largest Chinese retail chain, whom, thanks to his introduction, will
seriously consider doing business with me as well. This is obviously just a negotiation
technique, which appeals to the greediness of Western business people and in
part to their ingenuity.
3. The
concept of circular thinking
The last crucial information to know about
when negotiating with the Chinese is the difference between the Western
“linear” thinking and Eastern “circular” thinking.  A few years ago I was involved in a long
negotiation with a Chinese buyer of frozen pizza, produced by an Italian
factory and to be distributed in several regions of China. This was going to generate
a considerable amount of business for the seller. The negotiation went on for
weeks and it seemed like we never reach an agreement. Every time there was a
new issue popping out: exclusivity, special recipe for the Chinese market,
color of the label on the package, selling price, payment terms, etc. In the
end, and after several meetings with the owner of the company in China, a
contract was finally written and it seemed to suit both partners. We celebrated
together in one of those infamous Chinese banquets for more than five hours
with alcohol flowing freely.
A couple of days later, when the Italian CEO
had already left China, I was incredulous when the Chinese buyer called me and
he said he would like to meet me to again discuss several points of the
contract. It seemed like all of the past efforts were useless and we were back
to point zero. This was because I did not understand at the time the concept of
“circular thinking.” For Western businessman reviewing an already signed contract
means there’s something wrong with it which needs to be changed but for a Chinese
businessman this might only mean they really would like to review the points
and have them restated, not necessarily that they don’t agree with them or they
want to change them. It is part of their culture and the process makes them
feel safer and reassured. This must always be taken into account when
negotiating with the Chinese. Reviewing over and over already established points
is not a bad sign or a waste of time, it is just part of the natural process of
negotiation in China!
As said, the subject is much wider than this
and I have treated it extensively in my eBook Business con la Cina (Bruno Editore – 2010, only available in
Italian at the moment but maybe one day I’ll have it translated into English).
For those who speak Italian, you can find it here www.autostima.net.

Marco










 

Cialdini “Influence”
Series! Would you like to learn more about
influence from the experts? Check out the Cialdini “Influence” Series featuring Cialdini
Method Certified Trainers from around the world.

The Cialdini “Influence” Series is Coming Soon!

/0 Comments/by
Are you interested in learning more about the
science of influence directly from the experts? You’re in luck! Beginning
February 13, a seven-part online series begins where you’ll hear from individuals
who’ve been personally trained by Robert
Cialdini, Ph.D.
Dr. Cialdini is recognized as the world’s
leading expert on influence and persuasion. His book Influence Science and Practice is on its fifth edition, has sold
more the two million copies, and has been translated into 26 languages. If that
isn’t enough, Influence was also
named “the top sales and marketing” book in The
100 Best Business Books of All Time.
There are only 20 Cialdini Method Certified
Trainers® in the world today and you’ll get to hear from seven of them for 30 minutes each in this online series. Here’s your schedule of trainers and topics:
February
13 –
Anthony McLean, a guest blogger for Influence PEOPLE, will cover The Foundation
– What Is The “Influence Difference” And How To Prepare For Persuasion.
March 6 – Dan Norris, the
trainer who led me through my first workshop, will discuss The Principle Of
Reciprocity – How We Can Use This Most Effectively.
March 27 – Brian Ahearn. I
will introduce you to The Principle Of Scarcity – The Hidden Aspects That Can
Help…Or Hurt Our Messages.
April 17 – Hoh Kim, also a
guest blogger for Influence PEOPLE, will talk about The Principle Of Authority
– How To Use It When You Might Not Think You Can.
May 8 – Steve Martin,
co-author of Yes 50 Scientifically Proven
Ways to be Persuasive, will share thoughts on The Principle Of Consistency
– It’s Right In Front Of You…If You Know How To Use It.
May 29 – Debbie Hixson will
talk about The Principle Of Liking – Helping A Decision-Maker To Like You…It’s
Just Half Of The Equation.
June 29 – Matt Barney
concludes the series with The Principle of Consensus – People Proof…Using The
Power of Many.

There’s no better place to learn about the
psychology of persuasion than from the influence experts. I know many of the
trainers and can say with certainty; you’ll learn a lot about the influence
process and leave with ideas you can implement immediately. Interested? Sign up today!
Brian Ahearn, CMCT® 
Chief Influence Officer

influencePEOPLE 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

LinkedIn Endorsements: Reliable or BS?

/14 Comments/by

 

If you’re on LinkedIn then no doubt you’re
familiar with the relatively new feature where you can endorse someone for his
or her skills and expertise. This feature is akin to Facebook’s “Like” option.
Not too long ago I connected with someone on
LinkedIn who I’d previously had no interaction with whatsoever. The person
reached out to me because we shared a common interest.
Within hours of connecting he endorsed me for the following skills: management,
training, marketing, leadership, and business planning.
Now don’t get me wrong, I appreciate someone
taking the time to endorse me but this struck me as odd because management and
business planning are far from some of my stronger skills. There are things I’m
much more skilled at, like persuasion, influence at all levels, coaching,
sales, and sales management to name a few.
So why did I get these endorsements? Several
reasons.
  • First, my profile is pretty robust and creates
    a good impression (authority).
  • Second, lots of other people have endorsed me
    (consensus).
  • Third, LinkedIn makes it easy to endorse me for lots of skills.

Now here’s the rub – a lot of the endorsements
are BS. I say that because of the last point I made. LinkedIn has made it so
easy to endorse people that it’s becoming meaningless. Recommendations are a
far better gauge of someone’s skills and expertise because they mean the
recommender has some direct experience with the person they’re recommending. Writing a recommendation takes more time and effort but didn’t our parents tell us things that take time
and effort are worth more? I have nearly 1,600 contacts and the vast majority
have never sat through my training, worked directly with me or even met me.

Another reason I think the endorsements are BS
is because LinkedIn suggests them. By default many people just go with most or
all of the listed skills even if they don’t have any real basis to make the
endorsement.
Finally, consensus becomes unreliable. For
example, my new contact endorsed me for management. It was suggested and now
that he’s endorsed me, as have others, it creates the impression that
management is one of my better skills. The more people that see that, the more they
will endorse me. Do you think that makes me skilled at management? I don’t.
Reciprocity
is yet another reason the endorsements should be taken with a grain of salt.
Many people feel obligated to return the favor after having been endorsed. I
visited my new contact’s home page when LinkedIn asked if he has the following
skills: management, marketing, business planning, economics and macroeconomics.
I don’t have any real idea and therefore can’t in good faith endorse him just
because of what’s on his LinkedIn page and the pull of reciprocity.
For all the reasons noted above, I rarely
endorse people. When I do, I do so because I have some basis for making the
endorsement, not because LinkedIn asks me to or because I feel obligated to
return the favor. I’ve actually declined to give recommendations when asked. I did so because I’d never worked directly with those people or even sat on a
committee with them. In other words, I had no basis for making the
recommendations.
If you’re considering hiring or doing business
with someone undoubtedly you’ll check out their LinkedIn home page. After all,
it’s the equivalent of a resume on steroids. When you notice their endorsed skills
and expertise, if any apply to why you may do business with them, then here’s my
simple suggestion: have several solid interview questions ready to help you
determine if they’re all they’re cracked up to be. In other words, caveat
emptor, buyer beware.
P.S. I went through my skills and endorsement
categories and removed all the ones I felt were not applicable.
Brian Ahearn, CMCT®
Chief Influence Officer
influencePEOPLE 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

What Would You Do?

/1 Comment/by

 

At the last supper the apostle Peter said to
Jesus, “Even if all fall away on account of you, I never will.” Jesus told
him, “I tell you the truth. This very night, before the rooster crows, you will
disown me three times.” Peter protested, “Even if I have to die with you, I
will never disown you.” And the rest is history – Peter did deny the Lord three
times before sunrise.
I love that story because it reveals Peter’s
humanity and ultimately the forgiveness of Jesus. I also believe it tells us
something about each of us as individuals – we never really know how we will
act until a situation is upon us.
I believe Peter meant what he said with all of
his heart. To his credit he was ready to die for the Lord when he drew his
sword and cut off the Roman slave’s ear. However, he wasn’t ready when the
situation changed slightly. In the early morning in the courtyard outside the
temple when he was under no physical threat he denied knowing Jesus when asked
directly three times.
Quite often we “think” we know what we’d do in
a situation. We would never participate in the holocaust; we would have done
something about Jerry Sandusky had we been at Penn State; we would not have
participated in segregation in the South even if we had grown up there. Then
social psychology comes along and bursts our bubble with experiments that show
us otherwise. For example:
We believe we could resist the pressure to conform (consensus) if we knew we were
right. That’s what people assumed going into the Asch conformity experiments in the 1950s. And
yet, an amazing number gave into the crowd and went along with them even though
their senses told them they were correct, not the crowd.
Most of you reading this believe you’d never
harm another person just because an “authority” insists that you do
so. The participants in Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment in 1961 probably
thought the same thing going into the experiment. However, two-thirds
eventually gave a series of 30 shocks with the last being 450 volts!
The college students in the 1971 Stanford prison experiment probably thought
they’d never behave sadistically when acting as prison guards just because of the environment. After all, the late ‘60s
and early ‘70s were known for young people railing against the establishment,
not conforming to it. In reality the students were so sadistic the two-week
experiment was halted after just six days!
When it comes to how we’ll react in stressful
situations we often overestimate our goodness and underestimate the impact of
people in positions of authority, the environment we’re in, and the pressure we
feel from others to conform.
Not everyone gave in during those experiments
and maybe, just maybe, you’d be one of those who would have resisted. However,
most people did give in so we’d be a little arrogant to just assume we’re so
different than those ordinary people that we’d always do the right thing.
So what’s a person to do? Peter tried relying
on his willpower and we know how that turned out. Heck, he was even told
explicitly what he’d do and that wasn’t enough for him to catch himself and
make a different choice.
Wouldn’t it be better to understand how people
typically think and behave? If you have that understanding it can create the
self-awareness you might need to make a better choice should you find yourself
in a situation where you know the right thing to do but feel paralyzed by fear.
That fear can be rejection from the crowd, retribution from the authority or
the feeling of powerlessness in the situation.
This is where social psychology comes in handy
because quite often our hunches about human behavior are incorrect. Dan Ariely
wrote two books about this very subject; Predictably
Irrational and The Upside of
Irrationality. I encourage you to keep checking in with Influence PEOPLE
each week. An investment of five minutes might be all it takes for you to catch
yourself and make a better choice than Peter did and most people in the
experiments I mentioned.

** To vote for Robert Cialdini, President of Influence At Work, for the Top Management Thinker of 2013 click here.
Brian Ahearn, CMCT®
Chief Influence Officer
influencePEOPLE 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Aligning the Principles of Influence with Aristotle’s Ethos, Pathos and Logos

/3 Comments/by

 

Aristotle is credited with the following definition of persuasion: “The art of getting someone to do something they wouldn’t ordinarily do if you didn’t ask.”
Pause and think about it for a moment. Isn’t that a great definition? If someone is already doing what you want there’s no need to communicate in order to change anything. Unfortunately, all too often others aren’t doing what you’d like and you need to communicate with them in a way that changes that.
If I could change one word in Aristotle’s definition it would be to substitute “science” for “art.” In my mind art conveys natural talents or gifts that some people might feel they lack. Science on the other hand is something that can be learned by anyone.
When it comes to the science of influence it may surprise you to know we have more than six decades of research from social psychologists and behavioral economists on the psychology of persuasion. That means we now have scientifically proven ways to communicate more effectively. In the business world we might say there are “best practices” when it comes to effectively communicating.
Aristotle taught people three criteria for effective persuasion: ethos, pathos and logos. We’ll take a look at each and see how Robert Cialdini’s principles of influence come into play.
Ethos refers to someone’s character and credibility. Two principles of influence come into play to establish ethos: liking and authority.
We know it’s easier to say “Yes” to people we know and like. That’s the principle of liking. If someone likes you the “halo effect” comes into play and they naturally give you the benefit of the doubt on many other attributes, which makes it easier to effectively communicate.
Influence Tip – A great way to get the liking principle going is to offer up genuine compliments. When you do that people feel good and associate those positive feelings with you.
We also know it’s natural for us to pay closer attention to people we view as credible – those who are wiser than we are, experts in their fields. This is the principle of authority at work.
Influence Tip – The more someone knows about your credentials and experience the easier it is to tap into ethos, so make sure they know your credentials before you speak.
Pathos is the connection the persuader makes with another when communicating. Liking and reciprocity both help build relationships so they’re what you want to try to tap into when establishing pathos.
The more someone likes you the easier it is to connect. Once you find out you have a few things in common with your audience they feel a sense of camaraderie and they’re open to what you have to say.
Influence Tip – Make sure you look for things you have in common and mention them early on. If you’re being introduced make sure a few personal items are shared before you speak. Something as simple as being married or having kids can get the ball rolling. You want your audience to know you’re just like them to make a connection.
Reciprocity tells us people feel obligated to give back to those who’ve first given to them. By doing something for others, helping them in some way, they will feel obligated to at least listen to you. Reciprocity, builds relationships because when you help others they feel good about you.
Influence Tip – Look for ways to genuinely help people before you ever ask anything of them. Once you’ve done that and need their help they’ll be much more likely to say “yes.”
Logos is the logical use of words. It’s the factual argument to be made. Consensus, consistency and scarcity come into play here.
Consensus tells us people tend to move with the crowd. When we know large numbers of people, or people just like us, are doing something we are more likely to go along with it. This is logical because historically there’s safety in numbers. As the old saying goes, “Everyone can’t be wrong.” Well, at least the majority of the time everyone isn’t wrong so it’s usually a good bet to follow the crowd.
Influence Tip – Make sure you talk about what others are doing to “invite” your audience along because it’s only logical for them to move with the crowd.
People work very hard to make sure their words and deeds match. In fact, we all feel internal psychological pressure and external social pressure to be consistent in what we say and do. This is the principle of consistency.
Influence Tip – Find out whatever you can about your audience before you speak and make sure you relate your request back to what they’ve said, done, believe, etc. After all, it only makes sense for people to stay true to themselves.
Scarcity alerts us to the reality that when something is rare or dwindling in availability it makes us want it more. Again, quite often it’s the logical thing to seize opportunities before they go away. Doing so also helps us avoid regret over lost opportunities.
Influence Tip – It should be your goal to share what makes you, your organization, or your offering unique in some way. In other words, what does somebody stand to lose by not going along with your request?
So there you have a quick summary of Aristotle’s methodology tied to Robert Cialdini’s principles of influence. Tying the concepts from these brilliant thinkers is a great one-two combination for more effective persuasion.

** To vote for Robert Cialdini, President of Influence At Work, for the Top Management Thinker of 2013 click here.
Brian Ahearn, CMCT®
Chief Influence Officer
InfluencePEOPLE 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.

Keys to Persuading Thinker Personalities

/0 Comments/by

Here comes your biggest challenge thus far; trying to persuade one of the smartest people to ever walk the planet – Albert Einstein! Talk about intimidating; he’ll see through every psychological ploy you toss at him. If you were going to ask Einstein for something, how would you persuade him to say “Yes?”

In our final week we’ll consider how best to persuade someone who is a thinker or analytical personality type. When I think of this personality type, Einstein comes to mind because he would be someone more task-oriented than relationship-focused. However, unlike Donald Trump, he doesn’t seek to control situations and other people. Instead, he would be someone more focused on self-control. The follow describes the thinker/analytical personality type:

Very task driven; can be slow to act because they like to think things through; exercise good self-control; don’t consider themselves assertive; like data to support decisions; usually take a logical, systematic approach to things; like to see track records and trends to support ideas.

Of the four personality types, the second most often identified was the thinker at 29%. The one chosen most often was the pragmatic (32%), then expressive (24%) and finally amiable (14%).

Because thinkers are task-focused like pragmatics, it will come as no surprise to find out they chose answers that engaged reciprocity and liking much less than did the amiable and expressive personality types. Those personalities are much more relationship-oriented than they are on prioritizing tasks. Some influence advice when dealing with a thinker:

Using the liking principle is okay because it’s socially acceptable but you don’t want to spend much time here because thinkers are not concerned with being your friend. Don’t take offense but most of the time their thoughts are off somewhere else.

Pulling the reciprocity lever – doing things in hopes of a return favor – won’t be an effective strategy either. Thinkers will certainly accept whatever you give them but it won’t be a high priority for them to find ways to repay the favor.

More than any other personality type, when it comes to making business decisions, helping thinkers deal with uncertainty should be your top priority.

Thinkers were more persuaded by the principle of consensus – what others were doing – than any other personality type. It’s not that they just go with the flow; rather they can be persuaded by what others who are like them happen to be doing. So tell Einstein what Tesla, Edison or other classic thinkers are doing and he’ll listen.

Sharing facts or relying on the advice of experts – the principle of authority – is more effective with this group than any other personality type! One other expert is good but many (consensus) will be your best bet when trying to persuade a thinker.

Consistency – what someone has said or done in the past –was also high for thinkers. Only pragmatics had a higher score. Pragmatics may believe they’re right in what they say and do because of their egos. Thinkers believe they’re right because they’ve put so much time and energy into their decision before they act on it or share it. Tie your request to what a thinker has said, done or professes to believe and your odds of success go up dramatically.

Scarcity was the least effective principle with this personality type. Odds are they’ve thought about your offer, perhaps researched it, so if it’s not actually rare or going away they’ll see right through it. You’ll get much more response by helping them overcome uncertainty (consensus and authority) in the business environment.

When it comes to the thinkers you know they may not be as extreme as Albert Einstein. However, you’ll still be better off focusing on certain principles because they’ll help you more than others. In order, here are the most effective principles of influence for thinkers:

  • Authority
  • Consensus
  • Consistency
  • Liking
  • Reciprocity
  • Scarcity

I hope you’ve found this series on personality types helpful. When it comes to persuading people, where you have a handle on their personality type, plan accordingly and you’ll be far more successful than if you simply wing it. Also, setting the stage – what you do before you attempt to persuade – will be extremely helpful.

Brian Ahearn, CMCT®
Chief Influence Officer
influencePEOPLE 
Helping You Learn to Hear “Yes”.