Tag Archive for: consensus

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

/0 Comments/by

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

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

You’re
the Manager – What Would You Do?

Imagine you are the HR manager of a pharmaceutical company. Last week, your company held a two-day off-site workshop, inviting all 221 employees. You had several busy months leading up to the workshop due to being charged with organizing the event; i.e., selecting the venue, accommodations and food, inviting guest speakers and setting the agenda. Now, it’s over and the HR director, your boss, asked you to email a survey to the employees asking for their feedback. This is important because the survey results will be considered for your upcoming performance review. Your boss said something very important, “As this is internal survey, the response rate should be over 60%. With your encouragement, people will respond.”
So you developed a survey with a dozen questions and sent it Tuesday to all 221 employees. The deadline to wrap up the results is next Tuesday at 10 a.m. Friday morning you checked the online survey system to find out how many employees responded. On the first day, Tuesday morning, as soon as the survey was sent 25 employees responded. Not a bad start. By Tuesday afternoon an additional 14 employees responded.
Wednesday morning only five employees responded and from Wednesday through Friday morning, no one else responded! Only 20% have responded and you have to have an additional 40% to meet your boss’s expectation. You have many things to handle and you know you can have only one follow up email to encourage more participation. How could you write the email?
I have observed similar cases at companies and schools where
employee participation is encouraged via email and then followed up the same way. It is easy to find people who sent emails that read like this, “Last week I emailed employees asking you to participate in a survey and only 20% responded. Would you participate so that we can improve our workshop next year?”
What would Dr. Cialdini do in this case? One of the principles of influence at work is social proof (a.k.a. consensus); people follow the majority. But, Dr. Cialdini warns to be careful with negative social proof. Normally, it’s better not to use social proof in negative situations. Think about it for a moment. People follow the majority and your complaint stating “only 20% have responded” lets people who didn’t respond to the survey know that they are in the majority, not the minority. Employees will not be persuaded to respond when most other coworkers are not responding.
So what should you do? Pick some positive responses – fast, concrete, and constructive ones – and use them in your follow-up email. To test this I did a small experiment a few years back when I facilitated in a customized Principles of Persuasion workshop for a small group of top performing employees in a Korean company. Before the workshop I sent an email survey to learn their interests and concerns about the workshop. As soon as the survey was sent, 23% of the participants responded. Not bad. On the second day there was no response. Third day? None. On the fourth day I realized I had to do something so I wrote another email. The new email said, “As soon as the survey went out, there were people who responded to the survey by providing a very detailed and constructive feedback. I appreciate that. If you have not had a chance to participate yet, please do so by clicking on the link. It is a very short survey!” Of course, I didn’t say, “only 23% responded…” What happened? For the next two days, the response rate tripled, going from 23% to 69%. Not bad at all!

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

Hoh, CMCT

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

/4 Comments/by

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

It’s true that understanding how people’s minds work and knowing more effective ways to get someone to say “Yes” gives you an advantage. However, I don’t see that being any different than good looking people having a leg up when it comes to modeling, math whizzes doing better in fields like accounting, or people with great voices having a better chance at a singing career.
In each case those people possess something most others do not but we don’t consider it an unfair advantage. To be sure, if a good looking person uses their looks to take advantage of you or if the math genius knowingly confuses you with numbers to get the best deal then we’d say those people were not acting in a fair manner.
Richard
Shell and Mario Moussa, authors of The Art of WOO, have a wonderful quote that goes to the heart of the matter so to speak. They wrote, “An earnest and sincere lover buys flowers and candy for the object of his affections. So does the cad who succeeds to take advantage of another’s heart. But when the cad succeeds, we don’t blame the flowers and candy. We rightly question his character.”
Flowers and candy are neither good nor bad because, as Shakespeare rightly pointed out, we are the ones who ascribe meaning to them. Flowers can be wonderful when a man gives them to a woman when he asks her to marry him. They can also signify profound sadness when displayed at a funeral. Candy might not be so good if
you’re on a diet but it’s usually received with great joy by little kids on Halloween.
So
what does this have to do with understanding the psychology of persuasion? The six principles of influence as defined by Dr. Cialdini are neither good nor bad. They simply describe how people respond to one another and each can be used in positive ways or each can be used to take advantage of another person. Let’s take a brief look at each principle to see how this can happen.
Reciprocity tells us people feel obligated to return the favor when someone first does something for them. This is a great principle to know if you helped a friend move and need help down the road because your friend will be very likely to want to return the favor and help you. Of course there are always people who give you things or do things for you just so you’ll feel obligated to help them in some way.
Liking is the natural inclination to enjoy working with or being around people we like. Finding ways to like other people and get them to like you makes life much easier. Don’t you enjoy working with people you like? Sure you do. And I bet you want to like your neighbors and hope they like you. Deceitful people will tap into this principle by flattering you just to get you to do what they want.
Consensus is the tendency for us to go along with the crowd. Much of the time this is the right thing to do because “there’s safety in numbers” and “everybody can’t be wrong.” A dishonest person might try to sway you by telling you how “everyone” is doing something because they understand you’ll feel a psychological pull to go along with the crowd.
Authority is all about our reliance on people we view as experts. When you don’t have time to do a lot of research it’s a big time saver to defer to an expert. For example, most people don’t want to do their own taxes so they hire an accountant. On the flip side, there are people who prey upon this by creating a false impression of authority just so you’ll trust them.
Consistency is all about people doing what they say they’ll do or doing what you’ve done in the past. That’s very good because we can rely on people to continue in a consistent manner when we engage them. Of course, the manipulator seeing that can dupe the unsuspecting person by referring to something they said just to take advantage of this principle.
Scarcity comes into play when people’s actions are impacted by the thought of something becoming less available. Quite often this is good because we don’t miss out on opportunities that might go away. However,
this can be used against us when untrustworthy types create a false sense of urgency to get us to act in the moment rather than giving us time to consider all options.
As you can see, each of the six principles has an upside. In fact, I’d say the upsides are huge because they typically help us make good decisions faster. After all, if they didn’t lead to good decisions most of the time we’d quickly figure that out and stop responding to the cues. But just as flowers and candy aren’t
always good, the principles can be used in manipulative ways by some people who are only looking to get their way no matter the cost to the other, unsuspecting person. Just like the honest and sincere lover and the cad, it comes down to the motive of the person wielding the principles. I trust that you as a reader have come to see my focus is on the ethical use so win-win situations are created. Even if you don’t see yourself as the influencing type, understanding the principles will also help you protect yourself from the cad.

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

Unwanted Gifts and Help

/1 Comment/by

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

From the time we’re little, we’re taught to reciprocate when we receive a gift. Gifts are typically met with a verbal “Thank you!” or you might remember your mom or dad making you write thank cards. Reciprocating when given a gift isn’t limited to American culture either. Social scientists agree that people in all cultures are raised in the way of reciprocation.
Gifts differ from rewards in that when giving a gift there’s no guarantee the other party will respond in some way. With rewards an “if – then” system is put in place. For example; if you exceed your goals then I’ll reward you with a $100 bonus. There’s not much risk on my part because your failure to exceed your goals means I don’t have to give you $100.
Sometimes we get unwanted gifts, things we’d never buy or ask for, and yet we feel reciprocity tugging at us to return the favor in some way. Savvy practitioners of influence understand this and use it to their benefit by giving you something you may not want knowing you’ll give them something in return. Hari Krishnas were famous for this trick when they’d give unsuspecting people a flower and those same people then felt compelled to reciprocate with a small donation.
All of this is top of mind for me because of a recent business trip to Nashville. A group of us went to BB King’s Restaurant and Blues Club for dinner and some music. When I went to the men’s room there was a man there sitting on a stool near the sinks. As soon as someone went to wash their hands he was handing them a towel and taking a lint brush to their back.
Personally I find the whole set up offensive for several reasons. First, I don’t want some stranger touching me, especially in the men’s room. No matter where it is it’s an invasion of space.
Second, I don’t like tipping people when they’ve not done something worthy of it. To me it’s like ordering something at a counter and just because someone hands you your order they expect a tip. That’s entirely different than a server who hustles for you over dinner or lunch. When someone does something for me that I can do for myself with little or no effort, like handing me a towel, I don’t feel that’s worthy of a tip.
Not only was reciprocity at work in the men’s room, so was consensus because everyone could clearly see money in the man’s tip jar. That starts a battle inside about whether or not to tip because others have already done so. Here’s a hint; the tip jar was probably “salted” meaning the person put some money in to start with, in order to give the impression that others have been tipping and so should you.
One other thing to point out, all of this becomes more difficult when you’re the only one in the restroom. It’s like making eye contact with someone who asks you a question; you can’t pretend they’re not there in an effort to not engage.
Back to reciprocity; we feel the urge to reciprocate because whether or not we asked, the man in the restroom did something for us. I’ll tell you I didn’t tip because the whole set up actually angers me a bit. And yet after describing all of this to you I must admit, it was still difficult! Not only was it difficult for me, it was for others. In fact, when I brought this up later in the night one person in our group said he decided to wait till he got back to the hotel rather than go to the restroom at BB King’s! That illustrates just how powerful the urge to reciprocate can be.
As I share this I recall a similar incident many years ago at a different location. When one fellow in our party came back from the men’s room and told us there was someone in there handing out towels another person emphatically stated how much he dislikes that and that he never tips people who do that. And yet he did that night because someone in our group saw him do it. Again, despite his protests we see how strong the pull or reciprocity can be on any of us!
So how do you combat this psychological phenomenon when you feel the tug of war going on inside of you? I tell you it’s not easy and trying to do so will elicit a lot of thoughts and feelings. You need to ask yourself a few questions:
a. Did I want what the other person gave me?
b. Would I normally tip this person if I didn’t feel compelled to?
c. Does this feel like a ploy to get something or was it a genuine gift?
If you answered no to any of the questions then you need to remind yourself of that and make a choice not to give in to the power of reciprocity. The principles of influence usually guide us into good behavior but not 100% of the time. As I noted before, savvy people understand these principles and will seek to use them against you at times so be watchful and be vigilant if you ever think the principles are being used in an unethical manner.

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

Why the “We are the 99%” Movement?

/0 Comments/by

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

Why such dissatisfaction in the land of opportunity, the country where almost everyone wants to live? Certainly the financial crisis that led to the economic downturn in 2008 helped start the movement as many unemployed and underemployed Americans looked at what they perceive to be injustice caused by Wall Street and other large financial institutions.
I believe one psychological reason for the movement is rooted in a phenomenon Robert Cialdini, PhD., likes to call “compare and contrast.” This phenomenon tells us we experience things as being more different than they actually are depending on how they are presented.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 Americans known as “the middle class,” approximately 60% of wage earners, saw their income increase by 40%. Most people would say that’s not bad, until they compare it to the top 1% of American wage earners who saw their income increase an average of 275% during the same period. To make matters worse, when you group the bottom 90% together that group actually saw their incomes go down by $900. While the reasons for these gaps are many, the bottom line is this; it’s human nature to compare and contrast and the widening gap is a cause of discontent.
Is a person good looking? You can only make that determination by comparing that person to other people. Do you make a lot of money? Again, that’s a relative term and can only be answered by comparing your income to someone else’s. Many people are happy with their salary…until they find out they make significantly less than some coworkers. When it comes to compare and contrast, we all do it to one extent or another.
We live in a time of unprecedented wealth and even people who don’t earn much live far better than their relatives from decades ago. Indeed, it’s rare when Americans don’t have cable television, a computer in their home and a cell phone – hardly necessities of life. Yet there’s a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction because of the perceived income gaps and that they only seem to be growing larger as time goes by.
How did we get here? One statistic I share in my Principles of Persuasion workshop has to do with CEO pay. In 1980 a typical CEO made about 42 times more than the average American worker. By 1990 that figure had grown to 109 times. In 1993, the Fed mandated full disclosure of CEO compensation in an effort to help curb this trend but unfortunately their plan backfired big time. I bet you didn’t know this; by 2005 the difference between the typical CEO and average American worker’s pay had ballooned to 525 times! You read that right. In all fairness, in more recent years the gap has shrunk to a mere 269 times.

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

Consensus, sometimes referred to as social proof, is the principle of influence that tells us we look to the actions of others when making decisions and this is heightened when we’re not completely sure what to do. Prior to the federal mandate about compensation disclosure it was an educated guess as to what the market was paying other CEOs in a given industry. Once it because public knowledge it wasn’t unlike what we see with star athletes in sports. Salaries for those athletes have skyrocketed because once an athlete knows what other top performers make their sports agent begins to negotiate an even bigger deal for the athlete. It’s a keep up with the Jones’ mentality and so it’s been with CEO compensation.
Perhaps we’ve now reached the point the Feds thought we would back in the early 1990s when they implemented the full disclosure rule. The Fed thought people would say “enough is enough” back then but it seems to have taken a worldwide economic depression to wake up the voice of the majority of Americans. Where it goes is yet to be seen because there will be a tug of war between the average American comparing their income to the top earners and the power of consensus as companies vie for the best CEO talent they can find.

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

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

/0 Comments/by

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

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


Secrets of an Aussie Debt Collector

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

This comment resonated with me because I immediately thought of the complex influence problems we encounter. I thought the most difficult situations often involve a target of influence who believes they can’t say YES or simply won’t say YES.
I probed further into the world of our debt collector and found that he not only ran a very successful business but the more he spoke, the more it became obvious he was intuitively employing all of Dr. Robert Cialdini’s principles of influence in some way.
Of note: Dr. Cialdini originally discovered these principles by watching those masters of influence in a covert manner and then reverse engineered their strategies and validated them through research. Just as Cialdini had done, I quickly realized I was in the presence of an artisan; someone who was effectively employing Abraham Maslow’s fourth stage of learning, unconscious competence. Influence was a part of this guy; he just did it and was successful because of it. We arranged to meet to discuss this further and below are the secrets of a very successful debt collector.
Those who can’t pay
We started off agreeing that those who were happy to pay never made it onto his books so we would commence with those who believe they can’t pay.
Our debt collector (DC) started by saying the introduction to the phone call is critical. He had to be “firm but fair.” DC commences by introducing himself by title and appropriately demonstrating his knowledge in the field. He knows that if he is to influence those who believe they can’t pay he has to get their side of the story in order to understand what happened and, if possible, why. Going too hard will shut them down and that’s not to anyone’s advantage. With the introduction over he commences by getting their side of the debt story and uses this context to start to work through strategies to see how they can start to pay. DC highlights to the debtor that even small amounts are okay and reassures them that others don’t have to know about this situation. This second element is critical because for many “saving face” is integral to the process.
DC says that truthfully telling the debtor that “others have told him that they begin to feel better once they start” often opens the door to further discussions. He stated he highlights that this simple step will also stave off any legal proceedings and will give the debtor time to work through the problem in many respects under their own terms.
DC said that while working through options he avoids putting debtors in a position in which they feel they have to say “No”. Once a pathway is identified he gets the debtor to voluntarily commit to a repayment start date and to outline how they will go about making that first payment and the subsequent payments after that.
What DC has found is those who can’t pay are far more receptive after providing their side of the story. This also allows a time and space for him to outline the various consequences and to highlight the options they have open to them. Of course DC said he always finishes by commenting on what the debtor honestly stands to lose by not going down this path, including the widespread attention that is often drawn to public hearings like this.  He’d added his approach is unlike many in his industry and his staff is recruited because of their ability to engage with and talk to people, not just make demands and threats upfront.
During our conversation I was able to quickly note where DC was intuitively using the principles. They were:
·       
Introduce himself with the title of debt collector.
·       
Engage in a very different way to what people expect thus allowing for the contrast to be drawn to other debt collectors and even the debt recovery efforts of the initial service provider.
·       
Providing debtors the opportunity to tell their side of the story and allowing them to do so.
·       
Allowing debtors to make their own choices with one alternatively ensuring confidentiality.
·       
Providing flexibility in repayment options and terms.
·       
Cooperating with the debtor to find solutions allowing for payment rather than making demands.
·       
Genuinely looking at the situation from the debtor’s perspective and letting them know that it was not DC’s job to make this any harder but to in fact help them resolve it without causing further hardship.
·       
By highlighting that others like them have felt better once they commence the payment plan.
·       
Introducing himself by title and organization and quickly explaining the role.
·       
Demonstrating knowledge of options and legislation in the introduction
·       
Carefully ensuring the debtor doesn’t commit to “No” in the early stages thereby taking a stand not to pay.
·       
Getting the debtor to voluntarily commit to a payment plan with a start date and method of payment of their choosing.
·       
Highlight what they stand to lose by this becoming public or by going to court.
Those who won’t pay
DC informed me that as far as those who won’t pay, it’s more a situation in which they often have the capacity to pay, but felt wronged in some way. This could mean they didn’t receive the service or goods they initially paid for or they weren’t told the whole truth about the product and/or service initially. With this history of the service provider under-delivering or failing to deliver, often the debtor has not and will not take proactive steps to repay the debt. In many instances the debtor is happy for the matter to come to a head, such as to go to court, so they have a viable platform to vent their disapproval and highlight the injustice they feel has been perpetrated against them.
At the other end of
this continuum however are those that have learned that if they don’t pay the debt there is a strong chance in the settlement phase the service provider or debt collector will discount the debt in some way to get the debt cleared. Alternatively, if they go to court there is a chance they will have the debt admonished. Either way, by holding out, they “win.”
DC told me that once he identifies someone in the “won’t pay” group he doesn’t waste any further effort and simply serves a summons on them and commences legal action. DC said he does this because history tells him that if they won’t pay they either want their day in court, in which case he gives it to them, or they want to stall on the smallest detail and/or amount to ensure they “win.” Neither of these is worth DC’s time to engage in this lengthy and often non-productive interaction.
DC then stated that in his business only 3-5% of his cases progress by way of summons to court proceedings and almost 100% of this group were from the “won’t pay” sector. Knowing this allows DC to recognize that for 95-97% of his cases, if he or his staff invest time in the debtor and create an environment in which they can work together they will usually get a positive result. The contrast here to others in the industry is evident in that the stereotype suggests that the debt collector will stand-over, threaten or coerce the debtor, making them feel they “have to” repay the debt today and building resentment or resistance.
DC further backed this up with some more statistics saying that when he expanded his business from Australia to New Zealand, by using this approach he was able to immediately achieve a 50% payment of debt level whereas the previous provider could only achieve a 22% repayment rate.
Implications
In any influence situation we deal with three types of people:
1.      Those who are willing to entertain our messages/requests/proposals, or at least willing to engage with us and provide an opportunity to influence them.
2.    Those who reject our messages/requests/proposals because while they may be able to be influenced, they feel they are not in a position to be influenced, i.e., because of organizational structure, financial constraints, perceived conflict of interest and so on.
3.    Those who reject our messages/requests/proposals because they choose not be influenced. Whether it is because the outcome may challenge their status or expertise, they may feel wronged in some way and are reacting against us, or they have surrounded themselves with barriers or obstacles so you can’t actually get to them to influence them.
It is important in any influence situation to do your homework and know as much as you can about the target of influence. In DC’s case this is done partly before picking up the phone and partly while on the phone. What DC shows us though is even for those who think they can’t do something, by working with them, doing the small things well, you allow the opportunity for things to at least be considered and influence to come to play. Occasionally the person we are influencing may ultimately not be able to say YES but they will know the person who can.
For those who won’t be influenced because of choice, culture or organization design, you as the agent of influence need to reflect on the time and effort that will be required to break through the barriers and to ask yourself can you spend your influence efforts better elsewhere. If you engage with someone else, whether it is a competitor, a colleague of theirs or even one of their own influencers and they don’t have a seat at the table, scarcity is a great motivator.
Anthony McLean, CMCT
newintelligence
Changing the way people think