Posts
Please note that I will be speaking at the Society for Software Quality on September 22, 2009. The subject will be "THE SCORE" and a little about "Inductive Inquiry".
September Meeting Announcement Society for Software Quality
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Monday, September 21, 2009
Result-Killing Biases
When I talk about “mastering conflict” (as opposed to avoiding it), a lot of people are initially confused by my meaning. This week I’ll explain this a little further.
Patrick Lencioni’s landmark book “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team” presents a hierarchy of conditions that must be met prior to achieving results. After establishing safety and trust, Lencioni’s hierarchy addresses mastering conflict. This is not AVOIDING conflict, but managing it so that it is productive. We get all of the good ideas out in the open where we can examine and compare them. If in the course of deciding on an action, the collaborators can air their differences in an honest and meaningful way, there is a good chance that they will be able to make a commitment that is meaningful.
Sometimes we avoid conflict by just “going along” with a decision, even when we think it won’t work. Projects that are dependent on too many of these kinds of “commitments” have a low likelihood of success, just because the important information that would have allowed us to make a better decision isn’t shared. It isn’t that we don’t KNOW what to do; we just don’t feel comfortable in sharing it. As you all know, that’s why Pathfinder Communication was founded; in order to teach principles necessary to help us make better decisions.
When we study the nature of decision making errors, we see that avoiding conflict is high on the list. Conflict is how we test each other’s ideas before we implement them. This testing is very easy and inexpensive at the “talking” stages of a project and gets much more difficult as we move through it. I have mentioned several times that the biggest reason that we don’t collaborate is that some of us fear that we will look weak by doing so, or that it will end badly with someone getting irreparably upset. So we are concerned about how someone will behave if we disagree.
As I have written about before, our behaviors are a product of our values and beliefs. Personality inventory tests (like Myers-Briggs for example) ask you about your behaviors and from that will derive your values and beliefs.
Below are some beliefs and values that you may encounter when you are collaborating. It is important to recognize them for what they are and understand that you need to question them if you recognize them in your statements or in the statements of others:
1 – Overconfidence bias. Sometimes, we believe we can do something just because we believe that we SHOULD be able to or because we NEED to or we WANT to. That doesn’t mean we can, and when we find ourselves projecting that we will be successful at something, we should question why we think so and assure that there is some reason to believe it.
2 – Sunk Cost effect. Sometimes, after we have put money or time or effort into an activity, it starts to become apparent that we may not succeed; that maybe we shouldn’t have started it in the first place. We may make a decision to continue to pour effort into the task even when it becomes unlikely that there will be a reasonable return. This difficulty to stop on a task we are invested in, this desire to throw “good money after bad”, is called the sunk cost effect. Remember that if during the course of a project information is revealed that indicates the project is unlikely to produce a reasonable, you need to be responsible enough to shut it down. It is a bad idea to try to “will the project” into becoming productive.
3 – Recency effect. Sometimes, when we look at data, we tend to emphasize recent events over more distant events. Sometimes this is appropriate and sometimes it isn’t. It is always appropriate to question why we think that recent patterns will continue and justify why past patterns won’t repeat.
4 – Confirmation bias. Sometimes when we conduct research, especially when we are hopeful that we will arrive at a given conclusion, we tend to gather or give undue weight to data that tends to confirm the conclusion we want. It is appropriate to gather data that is representative of the range of data available and not just that which supports our position.
5 – Anchoring bias. Sometimes when we negotiate a price may be mentioned by the other party, and we begin to think in terms of that price (instead of the value of the item to us). For instance, a car dealer would like for you to look at the manufacturer’s recommended price and negotiate in terms of that price (“I would like a 15% discount from that price” for instance). The recommended price has become the “anchor” upon which you will base the negotiation. It is appropriate to question the validity of any such anchor.
6 – Illusory Correlation. Sometimes, people represent that there are strong connections (correlations) between events for which there is actually little evidence. For instance, several books have been written about the so-called “Zero Effect” relating to the fact that every US president from 1860 to 1960 that was elected in a year ending in zero (1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960) died in office. These books offer “reasons” for this pattern, but since Reagan (1980) and Bush (2000) failed to conform, it is clear that whatever reasons were given were illusory. You may laugh at this, but wait till next time someone tells you what stocks to buy based on the outcome of the Superbowl.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Patrick Lencioni’s landmark book “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team” presents a hierarchy of conditions that must be met prior to achieving results. After establishing safety and trust, Lencioni’s hierarchy addresses mastering conflict. This is not AVOIDING conflict, but managing it so that it is productive. We get all of the good ideas out in the open where we can examine and compare them. If in the course of deciding on an action, the collaborators can air their differences in an honest and meaningful way, there is a good chance that they will be able to make a commitment that is meaningful.
Sometimes we avoid conflict by just “going along” with a decision, even when we think it won’t work. Projects that are dependent on too many of these kinds of “commitments” have a low likelihood of success, just because the important information that would have allowed us to make a better decision isn’t shared. It isn’t that we don’t KNOW what to do; we just don’t feel comfortable in sharing it. As you all know, that’s why Pathfinder Communication was founded; in order to teach principles necessary to help us make better decisions.
When we study the nature of decision making errors, we see that avoiding conflict is high on the list. Conflict is how we test each other’s ideas before we implement them. This testing is very easy and inexpensive at the “talking” stages of a project and gets much more difficult as we move through it. I have mentioned several times that the biggest reason that we don’t collaborate is that some of us fear that we will look weak by doing so, or that it will end badly with someone getting irreparably upset. So we are concerned about how someone will behave if we disagree.
As I have written about before, our behaviors are a product of our values and beliefs. Personality inventory tests (like Myers-Briggs for example) ask you about your behaviors and from that will derive your values and beliefs.
Below are some beliefs and values that you may encounter when you are collaborating. It is important to recognize them for what they are and understand that you need to question them if you recognize them in your statements or in the statements of others:
1 – Overconfidence bias. Sometimes, we believe we can do something just because we believe that we SHOULD be able to or because we NEED to or we WANT to. That doesn’t mean we can, and when we find ourselves projecting that we will be successful at something, we should question why we think so and assure that there is some reason to believe it.
2 – Sunk Cost effect. Sometimes, after we have put money or time or effort into an activity, it starts to become apparent that we may not succeed; that maybe we shouldn’t have started it in the first place. We may make a decision to continue to pour effort into the task even when it becomes unlikely that there will be a reasonable return. This difficulty to stop on a task we are invested in, this desire to throw “good money after bad”, is called the sunk cost effect. Remember that if during the course of a project information is revealed that indicates the project is unlikely to produce a reasonable, you need to be responsible enough to shut it down. It is a bad idea to try to “will the project” into becoming productive.
3 – Recency effect. Sometimes, when we look at data, we tend to emphasize recent events over more distant events. Sometimes this is appropriate and sometimes it isn’t. It is always appropriate to question why we think that recent patterns will continue and justify why past patterns won’t repeat.
4 – Confirmation bias. Sometimes when we conduct research, especially when we are hopeful that we will arrive at a given conclusion, we tend to gather or give undue weight to data that tends to confirm the conclusion we want. It is appropriate to gather data that is representative of the range of data available and not just that which supports our position.
5 – Anchoring bias. Sometimes when we negotiate a price may be mentioned by the other party, and we begin to think in terms of that price (instead of the value of the item to us). For instance, a car dealer would like for you to look at the manufacturer’s recommended price and negotiate in terms of that price (“I would like a 15% discount from that price” for instance). The recommended price has become the “anchor” upon which you will base the negotiation. It is appropriate to question the validity of any such anchor.
6 – Illusory Correlation. Sometimes, people represent that there are strong connections (correlations) between events for which there is actually little evidence. For instance, several books have been written about the so-called “Zero Effect” relating to the fact that every US president from 1860 to 1960 that was elected in a year ending in zero (1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960) died in office. These books offer “reasons” for this pattern, but since Reagan (1980) and Bush (2000) failed to conform, it is clear that whatever reasons were given were illusory. You may laugh at this, but wait till next time someone tells you what stocks to buy based on the outcome of the Superbowl.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Monday, September 14, 2009
Curiosity
When another person is presenting an idea, maintaining your curiosity sends a number of messages.
1) Genuine curiosity shows a willingness to learn from someone, and that prompts the other person to explain their perspective as fully as they can, because they can SENSE that if they do it well, they will be fully understood. We human beings work hard to be understood and will give it all we’ve got if we feel the chances are good.
2) Curiosity implies to the other person that their perspective is valued, even if it is not adopted. We appreciate being listened to, and it makes us grateful and engaged.
3) Curiosity shows the other person that our mind is not yet made up – that we are open to being influenced.
These three things create a bond between us. They make us feel safe to exchange ideas. That is the power of curiosity. So how do we show we are curious? There are lots of ways.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
1) Genuine curiosity shows a willingness to learn from someone, and that prompts the other person to explain their perspective as fully as they can, because they can SENSE that if they do it well, they will be fully understood. We human beings work hard to be understood and will give it all we’ve got if we feel the chances are good.
2) Curiosity implies to the other person that their perspective is valued, even if it is not adopted. We appreciate being listened to, and it makes us grateful and engaged.
3) Curiosity shows the other person that our mind is not yet made up – that we are open to being influenced.
These three things create a bond between us. They make us feel safe to exchange ideas. That is the power of curiosity. So how do we show we are curious? There are lots of ways.
- We speak about our own idea tentatively, to show that we haven’t made up our mind yet.
- We listen to what the other person says. We fight the urge to compare their idea to ours, and just listen.
- We listen with empathy. Sometimes, if we try to understand the other party’s point of view, we can see their justification for their idea right away.
- We help them find better justification for their idea (while remaining authentic).
- We see if we can become open to favoring their idea.
- We ask questions that help us get just the amount of information we need to understand their perspective.
- We ask how their idea fits with long term goals.
- We ask if they feel their idea addresses the cause of the problem or the symptoms.
- We try to form a hybrid idea, a new idea that combines elements of different ideas into a new one.
- We ask ourselves “what would be harmed if we went with their idea”?
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Monday, September 7, 2009
Exposing Hidden Agendas
When we think of the term “Hidden Agenda”, our minds tend to run to something nefarious or manipulative. A hidden agenda may be that, but it may not. A situation that I am asked about over and over again usually deals with one party having trouble with a counterpart over something that was never said. In other words, one party assumes that they understand something and move forward AS IF they are fully informed. Unfortunately, they may not be.
In many cases (most) this yields no trouble. In other cases it can be disastrous. We have all done this – been sure that we knew what the other person was saying and then suddenly find ourselves in a two person pileup!
We need to learn some prevention and some correction for these instances:
Recognize that it is difficult to know just what the other person is feels or means except in very simple circumstances. Usually it doesn’t matter, and so we may get complacent in our “seek first to understand” listening skills. If your counterpart is exhibiting signs of frustration or impatience, these are EARLY WARNINGS that you have already begun to demonstrate to them that you aren’t hearing them. If they are raising their voice or withdrawing from the conversation with clipped answers, you are likely headed for the RED zone. STOP AND CHECK to make sure you are on the same page. ASK QUESTIONS and be READY to “RE-UNDERSTAND” what may have been meant. CHECK YOUR EGO and make sure you are OPEN to hearing them as if for the first time.
Once you understand – REALLY understand – their perspective, you can ask them all about why they feel the way they do. Until you understand it, recognize that by incorrectly telling them what they REALLY mean, you are only demonstrating to them that you haven’t been listening. If you start off by stating that you need some help understanding their perspective, you will be better off UNLESS they are already frustrated. So catch them BEFORE they are “too far gone” by watching for warning signs.
These are great for “accidently hidden” agendas, but what about “deliberately hidden” agendas?
Recognize that the purpose of a deliberately hidden agenda is to manipulate you (or someone else, using you). If you suspect that this is the case, you can start using Inductive Inquiry techniques to work through these. I did a series on Inductive Inquiry last year (starting here). You can also learn them by attending the High Performance Communication class in January 2010. More information on THAT here and here.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
In many cases (most) this yields no trouble. In other cases it can be disastrous. We have all done this – been sure that we knew what the other person was saying and then suddenly find ourselves in a two person pileup!
We need to learn some prevention and some correction for these instances:
Recognize that it is difficult to know just what the other person is feels or means except in very simple circumstances. Usually it doesn’t matter, and so we may get complacent in our “seek first to understand” listening skills. If your counterpart is exhibiting signs of frustration or impatience, these are EARLY WARNINGS that you have already begun to demonstrate to them that you aren’t hearing them. If they are raising their voice or withdrawing from the conversation with clipped answers, you are likely headed for the RED zone. STOP AND CHECK to make sure you are on the same page. ASK QUESTIONS and be READY to “RE-UNDERSTAND” what may have been meant. CHECK YOUR EGO and make sure you are OPEN to hearing them as if for the first time.
Once you understand – REALLY understand – their perspective, you can ask them all about why they feel the way they do. Until you understand it, recognize that by incorrectly telling them what they REALLY mean, you are only demonstrating to them that you haven’t been listening. If you start off by stating that you need some help understanding their perspective, you will be better off UNLESS they are already frustrated. So catch them BEFORE they are “too far gone” by watching for warning signs.
These are great for “accidently hidden” agendas, but what about “deliberately hidden” agendas?
Recognize that the purpose of a deliberately hidden agenda is to manipulate you (or someone else, using you). If you suspect that this is the case, you can start using Inductive Inquiry techniques to work through these. I did a series on Inductive Inquiry last year (starting here). You can also learn them by attending the High Performance Communication class in January 2010. More information on THAT here and here.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Re-thinking Communication
I want to thank you all for writing in with requests for newsletter topics. I will do it more in the future; it was really fun to see how much everyone gets out of the newsletter. A little humbling, actually.
I've included a poll at the bottom of the post. It's just one question.
One subscriber wanted to know about the application of this material to sales. Clearly, when we think of salesmen, we think of someone that persuades you. Sometimes we think of salesmen in a negative light, as someone that may try to persuade you to do something that may not be in your best interest, just to make a sale (gasp!).
At a speaking engagement I had a couple of weeks ago, an astute listener asked about using the High-Performance Communication (HPC) skills to deal with hidden agendas. I view those as a form of the insincerity or information hiding that is associated with Advocacy (as opposed to Collaboration). Sales is a widely-accepted example of a profession in which some practitioners are seeking a given outcome, even if it occurs at the expense of another – the very definition of advocacy.
I see this topic as a great opportunity to describe how to start using the material in the High Performance Communication newsletter to its fullest extent. I have been talking all along about how we can change our own perspective, and by talking to people as if they too understand this material, guide them through conversations so that we end up in a win-win situation most of the time. This week, we will think about selling interactions in a new context – as the same kind of face-to-face interactions we have at work every day.
I’ll play the part of the salesman and say I view selling as a collaborative effort and not adversarial. For the sake of this discussion, it isn’t a contest in which you ‘lose’ if you buy what I am selling and you win if resist buying. It is a collaborative effort in which we are both engaged in trying to fix some perceived issue that you are having. Maybe you need to increase your production, or cut your costs, or raise your quality – whatever it is, you have a need and I am there to help you with it.
That change in perspective alone should have you talking to me, the salesman, differently than you would if you perceived this as a contest. You now see me as a resource that should have a mutual purpose in which you and I want to accomplish the same thing. Not coincident purposes, in which what I want to accomplish and what you want to accomplish are different but mutually beneficial, but a true mutual purpose. I ONLY want to sell you something that helps you accomplish your objectives. If I don’t believe it will, then I will tell you so. For your part, you ONLY want find the best way to accomplish your objective. If you don’t believe in me to help you, you must say so.
You must examine my credibility (track record, knowledge, openness, sincerity, curiosity, etc.) to see if I can act as a resource in solving the issue. In this way, you view the salesperson as a CONSULTANT. So you can feel free to discuss this with other resources, or to discuss other resources with me because we are after the same thing and I want to be connected to a knowledgeable partner in this. One that knows what they want. That makes it much easier to match you with the right solution.
Sales is generally viewed as a four-step process:
Think how easy closing would be if you had each been collaborating through the process! Then think of how you could guide this with High-Performance Communication (HPC) skills, whether you were the customer OR the salesman. Finally think that, if you WERE the salesman, how appreciative your customer would be for you acting in this way. Not just now, but in the future as well.
Remember that just because the other person has a vested interest in the outcome, doesn’t by itself mean that they are honest or dishonest. They could be either. Using HPC techniques, you will collaboratively ask for and evaluate the evidence they use to support their claims. You will evaluate their perspective based on the strength of the information, add that with what you know, and develop the best solution you can.
When I start my conversations with salespeople, I tell them (using the components of THE SCORE) that I am not sure if I need their product; I need a solution to a specific problem and while I think that their product MAY be a solution, I need their help in determining if it is the best one. I ask them if they feel they are capable of using their expertise and objectively help me find a solution. Many say yes, and as i guide them through the process, I begin to find that some really aren't that credible. Their solutions may turn out to be what I need later, but they aren't really right to help me evaluate the issues.
This is the way to approach a problem solving dialog. Viewing an interaction with a salesperson as a problem-solving session is a way to leverage HPC skills into those conversations. Basically, you are converting Advocacy into Collaboration, treating your counterpart with respect, making decisions based on facts, evidence, and sound principles – and building great business relationships. All of this promotes better communication, better decisions, better results!
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
I've included a poll at the bottom of the post. It's just one question.
One subscriber wanted to know about the application of this material to sales. Clearly, when we think of salesmen, we think of someone that persuades you. Sometimes we think of salesmen in a negative light, as someone that may try to persuade you to do something that may not be in your best interest, just to make a sale (gasp!).
At a speaking engagement I had a couple of weeks ago, an astute listener asked about using the High-Performance Communication (HPC) skills to deal with hidden agendas. I view those as a form of the insincerity or information hiding that is associated with Advocacy (as opposed to Collaboration). Sales is a widely-accepted example of a profession in which some practitioners are seeking a given outcome, even if it occurs at the expense of another – the very definition of advocacy.
I see this topic as a great opportunity to describe how to start using the material in the High Performance Communication newsletter to its fullest extent. I have been talking all along about how we can change our own perspective, and by talking to people as if they too understand this material, guide them through conversations so that we end up in a win-win situation most of the time. This week, we will think about selling interactions in a new context – as the same kind of face-to-face interactions we have at work every day.
I’ll play the part of the salesman and say I view selling as a collaborative effort and not adversarial. For the sake of this discussion, it isn’t a contest in which you ‘lose’ if you buy what I am selling and you win if resist buying. It is a collaborative effort in which we are both engaged in trying to fix some perceived issue that you are having. Maybe you need to increase your production, or cut your costs, or raise your quality – whatever it is, you have a need and I am there to help you with it.
That change in perspective alone should have you talking to me, the salesman, differently than you would if you perceived this as a contest. You now see me as a resource that should have a mutual purpose in which you and I want to accomplish the same thing. Not coincident purposes, in which what I want to accomplish and what you want to accomplish are different but mutually beneficial, but a true mutual purpose. I ONLY want to sell you something that helps you accomplish your objectives. If I don’t believe it will, then I will tell you so. For your part, you ONLY want find the best way to accomplish your objective. If you don’t believe in me to help you, you must say so.
You must examine my credibility (track record, knowledge, openness, sincerity, curiosity, etc.) to see if I can act as a resource in solving the issue. In this way, you view the salesperson as a CONSULTANT. So you can feel free to discuss this with other resources, or to discuss other resources with me because we are after the same thing and I want to be connected to a knowledgeable partner in this. One that knows what they want. That makes it much easier to match you with the right solution.
Sales is generally viewed as a four-step process:
- Prospecting (or qualifying) potential customers. This step is about finding someone that may already use the widget you are selling, or may have an issue for which your widget is a candidate solution.
- Interviewing qualified customers. This is where a salesperson finds out all about the important who, what, when, why, where, and how’s regarding the issues you are facing. It is also when they work though the acceptable solutions.
- Presenting a solution. This is where they present their recommendations for your issue.
- Closing the deal. This is where they negotiate through any differences between your desired solution and their proposed solution.
Think how easy closing would be if you had each been collaborating through the process! Then think of how you could guide this with High-Performance Communication (HPC) skills, whether you were the customer OR the salesman. Finally think that, if you WERE the salesman, how appreciative your customer would be for you acting in this way. Not just now, but in the future as well.
Remember that just because the other person has a vested interest in the outcome, doesn’t by itself mean that they are honest or dishonest. They could be either. Using HPC techniques, you will collaboratively ask for and evaluate the evidence they use to support their claims. You will evaluate their perspective based on the strength of the information, add that with what you know, and develop the best solution you can.
When I start my conversations with salespeople, I tell them (using the components of THE SCORE) that I am not sure if I need their product; I need a solution to a specific problem and while I think that their product MAY be a solution, I need their help in determining if it is the best one. I ask them if they feel they are capable of using their expertise and objectively help me find a solution. Many say yes, and as i guide them through the process, I begin to find that some really aren't that credible. Their solutions may turn out to be what I need later, but they aren't really right to help me evaluate the issues.
This is the way to approach a problem solving dialog. Viewing an interaction with a salesperson as a problem-solving session is a way to leverage HPC skills into those conversations. Basically, you are converting Advocacy into Collaboration, treating your counterpart with respect, making decisions based on facts, evidence, and sound principles – and building great business relationships. All of this promotes better communication, better decisions, better results!
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Monday, August 24, 2009
Persuasive Words – Phrasing and Credibility
This is the last article for this series on Persuasion. Even though I could write lots more on this subject, there are other subjects that are just as important and I want to get what you feel you need. After this installment, I am going to move into another topic. If you have something in particular you would like to cover regarding face-to-face communication in business, email me. This blog is about learning skills to help you influence your company to get better results, so let me know if there is something specific you are grappling with.
Checkout the Pathfinder Communicatotrs LinkedIn group (http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1958793) to see great NEWS articles from HarvardBusiness.org. Also, come see me at the September 22nd meeting of the Society for Software Quality. Go to (http://www.ssq.org/sd/) for meeting details.
Now on to the newsletter....
When engaged in persuasion, you can tell the winners from the losers pretty quickly. The losers are insincere, make claims they can’t back up, shade the truth to make their stories sound better, and generally lead the organization down a path. If you enter into a persuasion and someone is doing this to you, you need to ask them questions – the important questions – which we have covered in the last few weeks on this series. What evidence do they have? How do they know? Isn’t there a downside?
Listen for these words when others speak: free, proven, guaranteed, easy, or risk-free. These are very persuasive when they are true. If others are using them, ASK THEM TO EXPLAIN THE REASONING behind their use. If these words go unquestioned, and they are accepted by the listeners, you will have a HARD time changing their minds. Sometimes, we want to believe that one or more of those words apply to the software package being recommended by a colleague. If we wait to question them, even just to wait until we can ask them in private, the decision makers in the room can be swayed and could make decisions that will be hard for them to take back without losing face. It is important to plant seeds of doubt in the group if doubt is appropriate. And remember, if you question the magic words and the speaker has the right information prepared to prove their point, it goes a long way towards cementing the decision. So use these words yourself AND BE PREPARED TO DEFEND THEM with sound logic and easy-to-understand reasoning.
Persuasive language is always more persuasive when it is simple to understand. Persuasion is often telling a story in which the listener can imagine themselves involved as a character. You lead them from point to point, and by the time you reach the end, you share the same perspective – they are persuaded. It is often just explaining something in a way that is easily understood and credible. Simplicity extends to numbers as well; that is it is usually unnecessary to say that “sales were up 9.815% this year” when you could say “sales were up nearly 10%”.
Wordy sentences make listeners feel uneasy, as if you are trying to carefully craft a partial truth. Those of you that have attended classes or have read this newsletter for very long will remember that the “S” in THE SCORE is about simplicity and sincerity. They are important independently, and together have a dramatic impact on your perceived credibility. If you say “At various points throughout the fiscal reporting period, production figures were unpredictable and at other times quite steady, ending in a negative position versus forecast overall” you may sound like you are trying to avoid saying that “Production was down last year”. This can even be embarrassing when someone a listener asks “Did all of that you just said add up to production was down?” and you have to answer “Yes”. Even though you weren’t trying to hide anything, it feels as if you MIGHT have been, or that you felt you could fool the audience, or that you didn’t think anyone would notice – and that attacks your credibility.
Finally speak in a way that is positive, confident, cooperative, and credible. Be careful not to wander into arrogance or insincerity. Instead of saying “If we accept this proposal”, say “When we accept this proposal”; instead of “I guess we will need a consultant during phase 2 of the project”, say “I believe we will need a consultant during phase 2 of the project”; instead of “Your idea won’t work”, say “Let’s talk though your idea so that I understand it better”.
Give me your ideas for the next series. Otherwise, next week I will be left to my own devices.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Checkout the Pathfinder Communicatotrs LinkedIn group (http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1958793) to see great NEWS articles from HarvardBusiness.org. Also, come see me at the September 22nd meeting of the Society for Software Quality. Go to (http://www.ssq.org/sd/) for meeting details.
Now on to the newsletter....
When engaged in persuasion, you can tell the winners from the losers pretty quickly. The losers are insincere, make claims they can’t back up, shade the truth to make their stories sound better, and generally lead the organization down a path. If you enter into a persuasion and someone is doing this to you, you need to ask them questions – the important questions – which we have covered in the last few weeks on this series. What evidence do they have? How do they know? Isn’t there a downside?
Listen for these words when others speak: free, proven, guaranteed, easy, or risk-free. These are very persuasive when they are true. If others are using them, ASK THEM TO EXPLAIN THE REASONING behind their use. If these words go unquestioned, and they are accepted by the listeners, you will have a HARD time changing their minds. Sometimes, we want to believe that one or more of those words apply to the software package being recommended by a colleague. If we wait to question them, even just to wait until we can ask them in private, the decision makers in the room can be swayed and could make decisions that will be hard for them to take back without losing face. It is important to plant seeds of doubt in the group if doubt is appropriate. And remember, if you question the magic words and the speaker has the right information prepared to prove their point, it goes a long way towards cementing the decision. So use these words yourself AND BE PREPARED TO DEFEND THEM with sound logic and easy-to-understand reasoning.
Persuasive language is always more persuasive when it is simple to understand. Persuasion is often telling a story in which the listener can imagine themselves involved as a character. You lead them from point to point, and by the time you reach the end, you share the same perspective – they are persuaded. It is often just explaining something in a way that is easily understood and credible. Simplicity extends to numbers as well; that is it is usually unnecessary to say that “sales were up 9.815% this year” when you could say “sales were up nearly 10%”.
Wordy sentences make listeners feel uneasy, as if you are trying to carefully craft a partial truth. Those of you that have attended classes or have read this newsletter for very long will remember that the “S” in THE SCORE is about simplicity and sincerity. They are important independently, and together have a dramatic impact on your perceived credibility. If you say “At various points throughout the fiscal reporting period, production figures were unpredictable and at other times quite steady, ending in a negative position versus forecast overall” you may sound like you are trying to avoid saying that “Production was down last year”. This can even be embarrassing when someone a listener asks “Did all of that you just said add up to production was down?” and you have to answer “Yes”. Even though you weren’t trying to hide anything, it feels as if you MIGHT have been, or that you felt you could fool the audience, or that you didn’t think anyone would notice – and that attacks your credibility.
Finally speak in a way that is positive, confident, cooperative, and credible. Be careful not to wander into arrogance or insincerity. Instead of saying “If we accept this proposal”, say “When we accept this proposal”; instead of “I guess we will need a consultant during phase 2 of the project”, say “I believe we will need a consultant during phase 2 of the project”; instead of “Your idea won’t work”, say “Let’s talk though your idea so that I understand it better”.
Give me your ideas for the next series. Otherwise, next week I will be left to my own devices.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Persuasive Words - Describing Benefits
Everyone write me and congratulate me on my 75th article in this blog! And remember that a public course is starting on Jan 22. I am taking sign-ups now. Refer to this page
Occasionally, some of my students will want me to utter some series of magic words that will hypnotize whomever I am speaking to and cause them to be putty in my hands. Yeah, right. Persuasive words don’t work like that. Manipulation sometimes does, but we don’t deal in that because it is neither a long term nor constructive strategy. I will take some time and talk about how to phrase things to make them helpful in motivating others to take action on what you are discussing if you have followed the other parts of this series.
We have talked about credibility, creating a mutual purpose, developing evidence, using emotion, and good presentation structures. Here are some thoughts for framing what we say.
Remember that the mutual purpose is something specific that we can agree that we both want, and we try to make it as concrete (as opposed to abstract) as we can. Working together “for the good of the company” or “in the interest of justice” is fine, but they are each a little abstract. “For the good of the company” is made a little more concrete and is still mutually attractive when expressed as “to be more profitable”. It becomes more concrete (but maybe not as mutual) when it becomes “to cut expenses” and VERY concrete and not mutually purposeful AT ALL when it becomes “reducing your wages”! We want to pick the most concrete purpose we can (because it is the most galvanizing) that is still mutually agreeable. This tends to be more difficult as the number of people involved gets bigger, just because finding something that a large group is each interested in is more difficult than finding a common thread amongst a smaller group.
If we can arrive at a truly interesting and functional Mutual Purpose, we then should define its benefits. When you think of benefits, think about what desirable result will accrue to your counterpart from the Mutual Purpose. As an analogy, if someone tells you the new laptop computer you are buying has a Pentium Dual Core 2 GHz processor, you have a vague idea that it is perhaps faster or more powerful than your current machine. That is not a benefit, but a feature. To express the benefit, you must express what it does for YOU. “It will start twice as fast as your current computer, handle 3 times the number of concurrent applications, and will allow your computer to download files as fast as your connection will allow” is a statement of benefit. “It will let you do more work in much less time” is another statement of benefit. A car with a small engine may not sound good, but if it is framed as a big increase in gas savings, then that benefit may outweigh an “unnoticeable” reduction in power and help persuade you to pick the car.
NOTE – I am not advocating that you EVER withhold the downside of a perspective. I am suggesting (stating, really) that describing the BENEFITS of something (like a mutual purpose) is FAR more persuasive than framing just the features.
Understanding the tangible benefits of a perspective is important to all of us when we make a decision. Recognizing that we BOTH value those benefits makes us appear more aligned and increases the likelihood that we won’t disappoint each other in our journey to attaining them. Developing a track record of persuading people to do things that in turn provide them benefits is a great way to get them to listen to you the next time.
More on persuasive words next time.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Occasionally, some of my students will want me to utter some series of magic words that will hypnotize whomever I am speaking to and cause them to be putty in my hands. Yeah, right. Persuasive words don’t work like that. Manipulation sometimes does, but we don’t deal in that because it is neither a long term nor constructive strategy. I will take some time and talk about how to phrase things to make them helpful in motivating others to take action on what you are discussing if you have followed the other parts of this series.
We have talked about credibility, creating a mutual purpose, developing evidence, using emotion, and good presentation structures. Here are some thoughts for framing what we say.
Remember that the mutual purpose is something specific that we can agree that we both want, and we try to make it as concrete (as opposed to abstract) as we can. Working together “for the good of the company” or “in the interest of justice” is fine, but they are each a little abstract. “For the good of the company” is made a little more concrete and is still mutually attractive when expressed as “to be more profitable”. It becomes more concrete (but maybe not as mutual) when it becomes “to cut expenses” and VERY concrete and not mutually purposeful AT ALL when it becomes “reducing your wages”! We want to pick the most concrete purpose we can (because it is the most galvanizing) that is still mutually agreeable. This tends to be more difficult as the number of people involved gets bigger, just because finding something that a large group is each interested in is more difficult than finding a common thread amongst a smaller group.
If we can arrive at a truly interesting and functional Mutual Purpose, we then should define its benefits. When you think of benefits, think about what desirable result will accrue to your counterpart from the Mutual Purpose. As an analogy, if someone tells you the new laptop computer you are buying has a Pentium Dual Core 2 GHz processor, you have a vague idea that it is perhaps faster or more powerful than your current machine. That is not a benefit, but a feature. To express the benefit, you must express what it does for YOU. “It will start twice as fast as your current computer, handle 3 times the number of concurrent applications, and will allow your computer to download files as fast as your connection will allow” is a statement of benefit. “It will let you do more work in much less time” is another statement of benefit. A car with a small engine may not sound good, but if it is framed as a big increase in gas savings, then that benefit may outweigh an “unnoticeable” reduction in power and help persuade you to pick the car.
NOTE – I am not advocating that you EVER withhold the downside of a perspective. I am suggesting (stating, really) that describing the BENEFITS of something (like a mutual purpose) is FAR more persuasive than framing just the features.
Understanding the tangible benefits of a perspective is important to all of us when we make a decision. Recognizing that we BOTH value those benefits makes us appear more aligned and increases the likelihood that we won’t disappoint each other in our journey to attaining them. Developing a track record of persuading people to do things that in turn provide them benefits is a great way to get them to listen to you the next time.
More on persuasive words next time.
Insist on great business results! Go to Pathfinder Communication
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)