Monday, October 31, 2011

Jeremy Maclin, Jack Nicklaus and the Power of Commitment

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I need the board report by Friday.”
“Clean your room before lunch.”

Simply turning these statements into questions taps into consistency:

“Can you get me the board report by Friday?”
“Will you clean your room before lunch?”

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, October 24, 2011

Customer Service Success = Under-promise and Over-deliver

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


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


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


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


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


Here's something most of us face on occasion - time away from the office.  When we leave the office we change our voicemail and turn on the out of office message to alert people that we're away. When I take family time I clearly tell people I won't be checking voicemail or email but when it's not family time that's different. If I'm traveling for business I'm still more difficult to reach so I might us a message that incorporates something like this:
"While I'm away my access to voicemail and email will be limited. I'll do my best to reach you while I'm traveling but it might be Monday before you hear from me."
We live in an almost fully wired world where people expect 24x7 communication unless we set a different expectation. When people call or email they're not thinking about how busy we might be unless we let them in on that fact. My message doesn't promise the other person will hear from me but when they do I usually get a response along these lines, "Hey, thanks for getting back to me. I know you're out so I wasn't expecting to hear from you till Monday." Do you think they're happy? You bet they are because I exceeded their expectation. I under promised and over delivered.


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


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


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

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

Monday, October 17, 2011

The Three Commitments of Leadership are Essential to be Influential

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

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

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

The Three Commitments of Leadership are Essential to be Influential

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon

Monday, October 10, 2011

You Da Man!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, October 3, 2011

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

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