7
___________
Influence
The Secrets to Changing Behaviors and Attitudes
___________
WHETHER YOU ARE the CEO of a Fortune 500 company or the manager of a small group of direct reports, there are few skills more critical than being able to influence others’ attitudes and behaviors.
We face the constant need to adjust to changing market conditions: innovation and disruption, new trends, consumer preferences, and government regulations, not to mention competition that never rests. Particularly for business leaders whose job it is to sell these changes to their teams, the ability to influence attitudes and behaviors in support of a new strategy or evolving critical objective is anchored in recognizing the difference between persuasion and manipulation. Confuse the latter with the former, and you may find yourself going it alone.
Persuasion Without Manipulation: Recognizing Attempts at Manipulation in Yourself and Others
From the moment we were born, we have been schooled in the art and science of manipulation, so much so that we hardly recognize it, whether we are its targets or its purveyors. It doesn’t take a cynic to see that such ploys surround us at every turn, ranging from a daily onslaught of advertising to organizational politics.
Of course, manipulation is a form of persuasion in that the avoidance of negative consequences serves the needs of the target audience. “You get to keep your job” is a tried-and-true example of an effective manipulative strategy to anyone bothering to ask, “What’s in it for me?” However, the key difference between manipulation and persuasion, one that differentiates successful cultures from toxic ones, is that manipulation is almost always a short-term strategy that is destined to self-destruct unless even stronger forms of manipulation are employed in the future. In the short term a manipulative strategy may yield results that justify the means, at least in the mind of the manipulator. But if that’s your modus operandi, consider changing it in favor of ethical influencing methods that build respect for you instead of corroding it.
Manipulation is all about getting people to do something for you regardless of their interests. The magic pill of the art of persuasion, conversely, is to get others to take action that benefits them and also serves the needs of the persuader. In other words, while manipulation is inwardly focused, persuasion is a win-win proposition, an outward, connecting approach to exerting influence.
The fundamental element and criterion of effective and ethical persuasion is trust. Manipulators are heard, but persuaders are believed because they are trusted. Without trust, an audience wonders, What are the consequences of compliance or resistance? With trust, however, they may open their minds and give your message every chance to resonate. Trust is the mortar that builds teamwork, whereas manipulation is the jackhammer that tears it down. Manipulation is destined to expose itself as such and quickly breeds contempt when the reality of it kicks in. People who are manipulated try to find ways to survive, sometimes to get even, and those goals rarely align with the goals of the team. In the short term, manipulation may work, but for the wrong reasons: People are seeking an escape from negative consequences rather than feeling engaged in contributing value to a common goal. They may react with fear rather than with passion. And if it isn’t fear, there are plenty of other types of resistance that will eventually derail your best-laid plans, such as competing loyalties or naked self-interest. The win-win approach of persuasion, in contrast, will pay dividends long after the task or window of opportunity has passed.
When we understand the difference between manipulation and persuasion, we can recognize it in our own experience on both the receiving and the dispensing ends. So if your self-awareness tells you that the outcome only serves one of the parties, you know something’s off.
There are several telltale markers of manipulation:
• Is the incoming information (outgoing if you are the sender of the data) based on solid reasoning or on the fact that the presenter is carrying a big metaphorical stick? Are emotions being appealed to, and is the specific emotion fear or positive anticipation?
• Are there alternatives on the table? To what degree is the recipient (perhaps you) being given latitude to choose a path, and is the path of least resistance the optimal choice in light of the consequences?
• What does the presenter gain from the logical choice? What does the other party gain? Who wins here, and at what cost?
• Do you trust the source of the information or choice being presented to you? If you are the presenter, why should you be trusted?
Once you make a conscious effort to keep others’ interests in mind along with your own as you pursue your objectives, your leadership upside becomes unlimited. You’ll never reach your potential alone, and in the end those who rely on manipulation often seem to find themselves in precisely that position.
What Makes People Change Their Behaviors, Attitudes, and Beliefs?
The answer to this $64,000 question can unlock doors, win contracts, and sell ideas to both the front lines and the highest levels. Because influencing attitudes and behaviors is at the core of what any manager or leader does, it pays to revisit a little Psychology 101.
We casually use terms such as “attitude” in daily conversations with others, often without realizing that a clear understanding of the word might help us understand others a little better. We say, “Lisa has the worst attitude today” or “This attitude isn’t going to get you anywhere.” A common question we hear or ask is, “What’s with the attitude?” We praise people directly and indirectly by saying, “Phil has shown a great attitude on this project.” We use the word “attitude” interchangeably with concepts such as mood, behavior, and demeanor. It helps to know that attitudes are more than just fleeting moods or a range of behaviors people display on a whim. Attitudes, as psychology defines them, are the positive or negative evaluations people make about other people, ideas, events, objects, and messages.
Test yourself for a moment: What do you think about the new customer management software your chief information officer introduced? Do you like your office door closed, or do you prefer to work in an open environment where you can hear and see others around you? How do you feel about working overtime? What do you think about the new project you’ve been given to head up? What about the team you’re in charge of? What do you think about conservatives, about progressives?
Whether any of this pertains specifically to you or not, you can see that you probably would have something to say about these or any other questions you could be asked. The sum of your responses constitutes your attitude, which psychologists sort into three conceptual baskets: cognitive (our thinking), emotional (how we feel about something), and behavioral (the actions we display).
Here’s an example of a person’s attitude that includes all three elements in the order listed above:
Paul believes that his lack of a postgraduate degree is holding him back in his career at his current company. He feels inferior whenever his MBA- and PhD-holding peers question his ideas and proposals. Whenever he can, he avoids presentations to this group and delegates the task to someone else.
Before we can learn to influence or change a person’s attitude and behavior, we need to understand one additional quality of attitudes: They have dimensions. Not all attitudes are equally strong, equally top of the mind, or strictly positive or negative. Here’s an example:
Russell believes that outsourcing to offshore countries is bad for the U.S. economy and that it takes jobs away from Americans. Whenever he calls a customer service center and detects a foreign accent in the rep, he immediately feels anger, and his behavior toward that service rep shows it. Susan, like Russell, doesn’t believe in outsourcing but understands why many manufacturers and service providers use lower-cost offshore companies for administrative tasks and customer service centers. In fact, her evaluations of the practice are ambivalent and equally negative and positive. When speaking to someone in India about upgrading her cable service, she barely notices the accent and doesn’t feel strongly about it, and her behavior toward the service rep is not affected.
By understanding the three components of attitude as well as its varying dimensions, we are much better equipped to influence someone’s attitude in productive ways. In Paul’s case, for instance, you might try to expand his beliefs, and show him how his highly specialized subject-matter knowledge more than compensates for his lack of credentials, empowering him to feel on more equal footing with his better-educated colleagues and thus to present his ideas with confidence.
The Delicate Mix of Science and Art in Changing Attitudes
To build our executive presence by flexing how we influence others, it pays to look to the social sciences for several useful theories and principles we can learn and apply immediately.
Learning Theory
Leaders who understand learning principles such as classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and observational learning can use their knowledge to influence others’ behavior and create win-win situations. Here’s how to use those three principles to have a positive impact on attitudes and behaviors:
• Classical conditioning. If you employ the classic conditioning method, you can affect the way a person feels and influence that person to form a positive attitude toward you. For instance, leaders who strive to appear approachable and engage people in a warm and respectful manner are, in effect, conditioning them to feel psychologically safe, trusting, and forthcoming with new ideas and feedback. In that sense, simply hearing the leader’s name in conversation would prompt them to comment favorably without the leader needing to be present. Contrast that with a leader whose mere presence sends people running for an empty conference room for fear of being criticized, humiliated, or worse. The second leader has conditioned colleagues with communication and behaviors that negatively impact engagement and productivity, not to mention detract from the leader’s influence and positive executive presence.
• Operant conditioning. Another powerful way to influence someone’s attitude is by both being aware of and managing your response to that person’s expressed attitude. Let’s say Victoria, a direct report of yours, asks you to give her feedback on her recent presentation to the executive committee. Your comments, both positive in terms of what worked and constructive in terms of what would help her become even more effective next time, would reinforce her positive attitude toward growth and learning. However, if your response were focused strictly on the negative aspects of her presentation without offering any positive feedback and ideas for improvement, Victoria may choose to avoid giving these presentations in the future for fear of harming her reputation, at the same time limiting her opportunities to showcase her ideas and talents.
• Observational learning. Another way to influence others’ attitudes is to make sure they witness your reinforcement of someone else’s attitude. Say you want more active participation in your morning meetings with the other managers in the firm. By practicing active listening techniques and demonstrating sincere appreciation for everyone’s ideas and concerns, you ensure that the more introverted and less vocal of the group will feel encouraged to actively participate. They have clearly observed and registered your desire to get open and honest feedback from all present.
Dissonance Theory
The social scientist Leon Festinger provided a gift to strategic persuaders everywhere when he introduced dissonance theory in 1957. Festinger’s studies revealed that people perceive an unpleasant tension when they harbor attitudes that contradict one another. They often seek to reduce this internal conflict, also known as cognitive dissonance, by dismissing any new information that would conflict with their original attitude or by embracing the new information and changing their attitude to be more consistent with their new worldview.
Here’s an example of how persuaders can use cognitive dissonance to influence people’s attitudes:
Using the earlier example involving outsourcing, we know that Russell has a strongly held attitude that outsourcing is not patriotic, eliminates domestic jobs, and hurts the economy. You are charged with cutting costs and increasing productivity. You introduce the idea to Russell, a key manager, that if you outsource certain tasks in the company to an offshore provider, the company can free up funds that will make it possible for Russell to hire another designer. That would make Russell’s division more efficient, provide better service to clients, and ease the workload of the others, a constant source of stress that has led to conflict and toxic behaviors in the department.
Ideally, Russell would see that an additional staff member would take pressure off him, and he would feel a sense of relief that outsourcing might indeed affect his division in a positive way through less overtime, less tension, and quicker output.
Russell, who is experiencing cognitive dissonance between his original attitude of “outsourcing steals jobs” and his new attitude of “new staff would help our company on a number of levels and affect me personally in a positive way,” has to make a choice: reject the idea or embrace it and change his original attitude so that he believes outsourcing can sometimes be effective. What he won’t do is hold on to both attitudes because that would cause an unpleasant cognitive tension.
Your job as the persuader is to tap into the values and attitudes in Russell that he subordinated or wasn’t aware of until you introduced them as a possibility. By showing him the positive aspects (from his point of view) of a new attitude and getting him to verbalize them, you’ve created cognitive dissonance and set the stage for a potential attitude change.
Elaboration Likelihood Model
This model from the researchers Richard Petty and John Cacioppo posits that people change their attitudes and behaviors in more significant and lasting ways if they’re exposed to persuasive messages that make them think and consider an issue in detail and depth. This is referred to as the central route to persuasion. It’s important to note that people have to be motivated to hear your message, that is, find it relevant, as well as be able to process the message intellectually or physically. Distractions are a no-no if you want people to ruminate about something.
Persuasive messages that are lacking in substance but rich in peripheral cues such as the likability or the perceived authority of the persuader, or any other associations that give the receiver a shortcut to accepting a message, are thought to produce less stable changes in attitude or behavior than are substantive efforts to persuade. The former are called the peripheral route to persuasion. An example of this would be any number of 30-second commercials on TV that promise a better life via compelling images, music, and persuasive pitchperson.
Successful executives can use both routes to persuasion by presenting reasoned, relevant, clearly communicated messages to their target audience, at the same time making use of peripheral persuasion such as authority, likability, and the ability to make others feel at ease.
Political candidates often are chosen by voters on the basis of peripheral cues; assessing those cues is easier than wading through the issues and determining via deep thinking and elaboration which candidate may be more in line with one’s personal goals and values.
In terms of maximizing peripheral cues, having lunch with your “crew” may be a good place to start. When the president visits the troops at the front lines, he sits in the mess hall in their midst, eating the same food, shirtsleeves rolled up, listening and responding to their stories. Even in corporate cultures that are more hierarchical than egalitarian—General Motors as opposed to Zappos, for example—it helps if leaders demonstrate the human touch and clearly signal that they care about their employees’ well-being.
Ten Powerful Principles You Can Use to Get What You Want Without Violating Your Conscience
A leader’s ability to influence others depends on the specific tools she has in her arsenal. Below you’ll find a number of principles that can increase your ability to persuade ethically. Although the principles are clear—old-school manipulation is history; the empathetic win-win is in—the specifics of how to adopt and master a natural style of influence can be elusive without tactics that support the strategy. Here are 10 approaches that, when combined and implemented, will exceed the sum of their parts in making you a more persuasive rather than manipulative source of influence.
Approach 1: The Visibility Principle
Advertising professionals know that people gravitate toward the familiar. This is known as the exposure effect, in which familiarity breeds affection rather than contempt (that is perhaps more a domestic fact of life). This idea aligns with the concept of cultivating trust to become a better influencer: People trust what they know and understand, and they are skeptical of what they don’t know and don’t understand, even if on the surface it appears to be positive. Enlightened persuaders make sure to get plenty of face time and interactivity with those they need to influence on a regular basis.
Approach 2: The Supply-Control Principle
There are situations in which limiting the amount of time or supply of benefits can strengthen attraction. It’s no accident that many advertisements have a “limited time only” tag; people become anxious and eager about that which is in limited supply. This is called the law of scarcity, and when it is used by enlightened communicators, it can translate into abundance in terms of a positive outcome. Be careful, though: By artificially limiting the supply of something others want and thus increasing demand, you are planting yourself on the manipulative side of persuasion. Creating demand by letting others know that what you’re offering truly is in short supply keeps you in the ethical clear.
Approach 3: The Framing Principle
Words are powerful tools. They are so powerful that they become weapons of influence in the hands of professionals, and they become reputation busters in the hands of the uninitiated. The reason that words alone can influence people’s thoughts and behaviors in a significant way has to do with what I call the framing principle, which refers to the creation of context and mental structures that evoke specific mental images and meanings for the person reading or hearing the words. A simple example: If you tell someone to “disregard the gaps in my employment history” when applying for a job, rest assured that’s precisely what the person will think about. The frame you evoked—“gaps in employment history”—raises a flag with the interviewer because his frame for that term may summon up unfavorable concepts such as instability, restlessness, and lack of loyalty.
In this example, the attempt to negate a frame actually created the framework of the message itself. This is a situation familiar to former president Bill Clinton, a man known for his speaking ability. In an interview after his wife dropped out of the Democratic primary in 2008, against Senator Barack Obama, the former president said he still had regrets and insisted he was “not a racist” despite controversies surrounding his comments about Obama’s win in the South Carolina Democratic primary. The reporter had asked, “Do you personally have any regrets about what you did while campaigning for your wife?” Clinton answered, “Yes, but not the ones you think. And it would be counterproductive for me to talk about.” But then he did just that, saying, “There are things that I wish I’d urged her to do. Things I wish I’d said. Things I wish I hadn’t said.” As his coach, I would have advised him not to play into the reporter’s hands by rambling on about any issues the reporter didn’t specifically address, as this can lead one into dangerous territory known as streams of consciousness. “But I am not a racist,” he continued. “I’ve never made a racist comment, and I never attacked him personally.” That single explosive comment was all over the news the same evening, with pundits from every network asking, “Who said anything about being a racist?” and “Where did that come from?”
Clinton’s disclaimer could have come straight from the Richard Nixon Book of Rhetorical Blunders, a thick volume no doubt, if it were to exist. In Nixon’s 1972 resignation speech, which was televised, he famously protested, “I am not a crook.” As with Clinton’s “I am not a racist,” social science researchers say that such disclaimers should be uttered only with the utmost caution. Whenever a disclaimer is issued, by defining something you say you are not, it actually directs attention to precisely the quality you are disavowing.
Why? The research shows that the unconscious mind cannot hear and does not process a negative sensibility; this means that the word “not” doesn’t even register in the subconscious. This leaves the words “I am a racist” stuck in the mind. Although the conscious mind intellectually registers the word “not” in such a disclaimer, the unconscious mind, which records the entire experience on an emotional level, retains the memory of the word “racist.”
Approach 4: The Authority Principle
People trust authority. Research has shown that people listen more carefully and trust more quickly when the information comes from a source they perceive as authoritative. Many people can recall meetings from early in their careers during which their contributions barely registered with others, whereas even offhand remarks by senior executives were scrutinized for meaning and often accepted without question. Expertise from a credible source fosters trust. This implicit trust also transfers to authority that is merely perceived, often in just split seconds.
To understand this phenomenon, consider a well-known social experiment that illustrates the power of the common business suit, one of the many icons of authority. A young man in his thirties, impeccably dressed in a pinstriped suit, shirt, and matching tie, deliberately breaks the law as he crosses the street against the traffic light. The result: Almost four times as many people followed suit (no pun intended) as did so when the man wore a casual shirt and slacks in the same experiment. This is the authority principle in full glory, and informed communicators know that they can leverage whatever authority they bring to a situation to gain trust. As we’ve just learned, trust is the key to quick and effective influence.
Approach 5: The Evidence Principle
The evidence principle holds that information that is corroborated by outside parties—eyewitnesses, research, past experiences, and, best of all, the firsthand knowledge of the listener—is accepted immediately by the listener. This creates a framework of credibility and trust that a well-versed speaker can use to influence a listener more effectively. When an auto advertisement quotes an endorsement from Car and Driver magazine, for example, everything else the ad offers is imbued with credibility. The more uncertain the listener is about an issue, the more powerful the effect of such third-party confirmations and endorsements is; and the more credible the outside source is, the less the trust depends on the nature of the information. The endorser is enough to win the trust of the listener, as in “If Warren Buffett thinks it’s a good idea, that’s where I’ll put my money.”
To get full value from this pattern, when you provide evidence in a presentation, make sure it’s relevant and of specific value to key stakeholders in your audience. People are often—though not always—swayed by hard numbers and irrefutable data that support the points you’re making. You may not easily change an entire belief system this way, but offering more than just your opinion makes good sense when you’re looking to dislodge the barriers to acceptance of your ideas.
Approach 6: The Likability Principle
As we’ve discussed at length, trust is a major factor in influence. It is the key that unlocks the door to moving forward. Without it, listeners will be wary and open only to manipulation, which as we have seen is a short-term strategy that is bound to destroy trust and damage reputations in the long run.
Trust is gained through a combination of factors. Likability is one of them. People more easily trust those they like. Likability ties in directly with similarity. We trust those who are similar to us. To influence others with likability, you have to express genuine interest in them. You have to speak their language by using words they use and frames of reference they understand. Making people feel comfortable by subtly mirroring their nonverbal communication can also contribute to the feeling of similarity.
Research shows that people base decisions on emotions before they check them against the facts. Trial lawyers have long known that the degree to which they and their clients are liked by jurors can make a difference in the final verdict. A study that supports this thesis was reported in the now defunct Trial Diplomacy Journal. In that study, the 600 jurors surveyed about their motivation in deciding on a given verdict all mentioned “likability” as one of the reasons for their decision. Specifically, they liked the lawyer in whose favor they decided better than the other lawyer. The lesson is clear: Be genuinely likable and focus on communicating the similarities you have with others to gain their trust ethically.
Approach 7: The Reciprocity Principle
We learned this one as children: If you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. For adults it becomes the landscape of political lobbying, the fuel that powers relationships, as well as a powerful social influencing method. The essence of the reciprocity principle is concerned not as much with the trading of favors and things as with the exchange of value. Whether someone offers to babysit your children so that you can run an important errand or you offer to give someone a ride home from the office, a sense of obligation is established for the beneficiary to return the favor. The when, what, and how of the repayment vary with the context and the relationship.
I’m not saying that you should do favors to get something in return, but by helping others when it is in your power and generally acting with generosity, you increase the potential for the types of relationships that make influence natural and easy.
Approach 8: The Experience Principle
This is the evidence principle taken to a personal level. Nothing says credibility quite like having been there, done that yourself. Confucius, a very enlightened communicator, said: “I hear and I know. I see and I believe. I do and I understand.” This is something we, as influencers, can take to the bank.
We experience life in multiple ways, all of them sensory. A knowledgeable communicator knows how to bring this sensory, experiential realm into interpersonal encounters and presentations in a manner that adds credibility and trust. The more you can help others have a visceral experience either directly—a confident handshake, meaningful eye contact, and a genuine smile are a good start—or indirectly through the stories you tell, the questions you ask, and the insights you create in their minds, the more you will reach them at an emotional level, where much of decision making has its root.
Approach 9: The Salience Principle
When we’re trying to get a message across and influence others, we naturally tend to focus on what supports our argument and play down what might be contrary to it. We all do this. Politicians, spouses, ministers, the media, and managers do it every day in the course of trying to influence others. The issue isn’t whether such slanting is right or wrong but rather what’s honest or overly biased, what’s responsible or manipulative, and, more aptly here, what works to build credibility and establish trust and what doesn’t.
We should amplify elements of information that conform to all the other principles presented here: those that build trust, those that create a win-win, and those that don’t take advantage of others for one’s own gain. As we highlight the points we consider important to our message, we ought to take care not to omit information that gives our listeners a different perspective that could also be of value to them. Although it can be counterintuitive to bring up information that’s perhaps contrary to the message we’re trying to get across, ethical persuaders present options—and work hard to show the validity and benefit of accepting their ideas.
When we exaggerate the truth—or turn up the volume on what we want the audience to believe—in a way that hides or alters the facts of any counterpoint, we’re closer to manipulation than to a higher and longer-lasting form of persuasion. Strive to present a full and fair argument, using evidence and experience and all the other methods to influence. You can highlight, you can focus, but you can’t exclude any portion of the truth without being manipulative.
Approach 10: The Passion Principle
Passion can’t be explained. It is felt. Whenever you are looking to influence someone to accept your ideas and share your vision, you have to have a feeling that energizes your insides, that makes you become expressive and use language that stimulates the heart as well as the mind. If it doesn’t come easily, think deeply about your relevant values and tie them to aspects of your idea so that you can feel it in your gut. Genuine emotion has the tendency to transfer to others. It is also what people expect from you when you’re hoping to get their vote. After all, if you’re not excited about what you offer, why should they be?
In Chapter 8 we’ll look at the issue of interpersonal conflict and how we can manage relationships effectively to reduce negativity and build lasting rapport in our quest to create an executive presence that commands the respect of those around us.