CHAPTER 27
Managing Multiple Decision Makers
Our internal research found that the average B2B buying decision includes 5.8 people. If selling one person on your value-added solution is challenging enough, 5.8 people complicate the process. This means 5.8 problems to solve, 5.8 separate purchasing biases, 5.8 individual expectations to exceed, and 5.8 individual definitions of value. No wonder group decision making is one of the greatest challenges salespeople face.
Salespeople sell across multiple departments, at different levels, and in multiple locations. Influencing a group of decision makers is challenging but doable. The complexity of group decision making is so discouraging that some salespeople give up before they start.
Like buyers, salespeople have an immediacy bias. Salespeople also want what they want, and they want it now. What they want is an order. Given this, the time lapse of group decision making frustrates salespeople. A CEB study revealed that group decisions take twice as long as expected and are twice as difficult to make as individual decisions are.1 If B2B decision makers view the process as long and complex, salespeople must feel the same impatience and frustration.
Even though group decisions take longer and are more difficult, decision makers prefer a group for several reasons. Group decisions are safer and insulate against individual risk. Groups prefer consensus, safety, and the status quo. In a group setting, you’re competing against other suppliers while dealing with the group’s dynamics. Although this presents a greater challenge for some, it can also create a great opportunity for salespeople who understand group selling. A long, complex sale has the potential for roadblocks and distractions. Some may view these roadblocks as failure and prematurely give up on the sale.
Salespeople who are unfamiliar with group dynamics rely on familiar selling methods. They sell to each person the same way. Selling the same way to everyone is seller-focused thinking. Value-Added Selling is a customer-focused approach. This means customizing your approach to each decision maker and influencer.
In this chapter, we address the dynamics of group decision making and how to adjust your selling strategy for group decisions. At the end of this chapter, you will be able to:
• Describe how group dynamics impact decision making
• List three strategies to overcome group biases
• Name three ways to generate momentum in a group setting
• Discuss how to customize a group presentation
• Detail how to gain consensus
DYNAMICS OF GROUP DECISION MAKING
Have you ever noticed that people act a certain way one-on-one, but they’re different around a group? In a group setting, people act and think differently. A group setting influences decision making. There are several group biases and dynamics that impact a buying decision. In this section, we’ll analyze these dynamics and how they impact decision making.
Groupthink
Irving L. Janis, a research psychologist at Yale and University of California, Berkeley, spent much of his career studying groups and how they make decisions. Janis’s curiosity led to his most notable discovery. He wanted to determine why a group that makes one good decision could go on to make an obvious bad decision. He discovered that people prefer consensus and team cohesion. People in a group often conform to the group’s decision, even if they know the group is wrong. He also discovered that people in a group setting are reluctant to share opposing ideas or views. An individual’s desire to conform trumps his or her desire to be right. People prefer conformity. Janis wrote about this phenomenon in his book titled Groupthink.
Decision-making groups want conformity. Their need to conform can trump logic and self-interest. For example, an internal champion may buy in to your value-added solution, but if he is outnumbered, he’ll conform to the group’s decision. A strong-willed, persuasive leader can use the group’s desire for cohesiveness to drive home his preference.
Social psychologist Solomon Asch is known for his research on conformity in a group setting. Asch conducted a famous conformity experiment in which participants had to match a set of lines based on length.2
In his experiment, the first set of participants were asked which line matched the line on the left (See Figure 27.1). Individually, the participants selected the correct answer, C, nearly 100 percent of the time.
FIGURE 27.1 Asch Experiment
In a group setting, Asch used seven accomplices and one real participant. Asch instructed the accomplices to provide the same wrong answer. Each accomplice responded with the same wrong answer, and the unknowing, real participant gave her response. Seventy-five percent of the time, the real participants agreed with the accomplices and gave the wrong answer. The real participants’ need for conformity was stronger than her need to be right. How often do your buyers choose conformity over the right solution?
To combat groupthink, first identify all the key decision makers and their preferences. Before the decision goes to committee, identify who is for and who is against your solution. Engage each decision maker individually and gauge their commitment. Address any individual concerns before the group decides.
Group Polarization
Group polarization hardens an individual’s attitude or belief. It explains why moderate individuals become extreme when surrounded by people of the same beliefs or attitudes. Political groups are a good example of this. These groups listen selectively to what is said within their group. They anchor to opinions that are congruent with their beliefs. When a group of conservatives discuss politics, their individual attitudes and beliefs become more conservative. When a group of liberals discuss politics, their individual attitudes and beliefs become more liberal.
Group polarization intensifies an individual’s attitude and affects the decision. For example, several decision makers have a moderate concern about your company’s ability to deliver. Initially, one person expresses his concern, then another, and another. Initially, the group is moderately concerned, but group polarization intensifies that belief. The group is now extremely concerned about your ability to deliver. Their beliefs feed on each other.
This dynamic also works in the reverse and can represent an opportunity. If the group is moderately optimistic that your solution will fix their problem and one decision maker expresses her optimism, then another, and another, the group’s optimism intensifies.
Loss Aversion
Groups are more concerned about avoiding the wrong decision than making the right decision. You read about loss aversion in Chapter 6. To review, losses loom greater than gains. Pain is a more powerful motivator than gain. People hate losing more than they like winning. Loss aversion impacts all decision making, not just group decision making.
Since attitudes and beliefs can intensify in a group setting—group polarization—that means loss aversion can also intensify in a group setting. For example, a group of decision makers is choosing between three suppliers. One option is to stay with the incumbent supplier. The group doesn’t want to lose what they have with their current supplier. One decision maker expresses her concern, then another, and another. Even if the other options are marginally better, it may not be enough to overpower the group’s loss aversion. The group’s aversion to loss is more compelling than the potential gain of a marginally better supplier.
So, how much potential gain is needed to balance a potential loss? Daniel Kahneman, in Thinking Fast and Slow, mentions a “loss-aversion ratio.” Most people need the option to gain 1.5 to 2.5 times as much as they would lose. The gain must be approximately twice as much as the loss.
For example, if you have an opportunity to win money or lose money, the gain must be 1.5 to 2.5 times greater than the potential loss for you to take the chance. If you have the chance of losing $10, most people need an opportunity to gain $15 to $25 to take the risk.
According to this theory, if you are trying to dislodge an incumbent, this means your gain must be at least 50 percent greater than the value of the incumbent supplier. It follows that if you are the incumbent, your competition must offer a solution that contributes at least 50 percent more value than your solution. All of this hinges on the dynamics of a specific group. The real takeaway from this point is that if you attempt to create 50 percent more value than the field of competitors, it strengthens your position.
Loss aversion fuels other cognitive biases such as the endowment effect and the status quo bias. You read about these in Chapter 6. The endowment effect is the tendency to place more value on things already owned. This applies to ideas, too. People place higher value on their own ideas. Consider the implications of the endowment effect on group decision making. Since a group of decision makers places higher value on their own previous ideas, they naturally defend their previous buying decisions.
Understanding the group’s decision-making history is critical to assess the endowment effect. Use these questions to guide your effort:
• Who owns this previous decision?
• How instrumental was this group in designing the current solution?
• Did this group select the current provider, or did they inherit this provider?
• Did this group establish the buying criteria, or were the criteria established for them?
• What would this group do differently this time around?
These questions help you understand the intensity of the endowment effect. If the group designed, selected, and implemented the previous solution, they place a higher value on that solution. A group will not give up a highly valued solution they created, unless you can help the group come up with a better idea.
GROUP DECISION-MAKING STRATEGIES
Incumbent suppliers have a significant advantage. Their strategy is more defensive than offensive. Being an incumbent supplier is similar to a winning competitor having a lead at the end of a game. Winning teams manage the game differently. They still try to score, but their primary objective is to protect what they have. They assume a more defensive position. For example, in soccer, many coaches will reposition an offensive striker to play as a defensive fullback. Football teams focus on low-risk running plays to exhaust the clock. They protect the lead.
New entrants to a market or account—a new supplier—need a different strategy. The approach is more aggressive and offensive. The entrant is battling the status quo as much as a competing supplier. It is like trailing at the end of the game. When losing, the losing competitor must be more aggressive and take more risk. For example, hockey teams pull their goalies, and football teams throw Hail Mary passes. They are in attack mode.
Your position determines your strategy. In this section, we explore the different techniques based on your position.
Defensive Selling—The Incumbent Advantage
“It was amazing I won . . . I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency.”
—George W. Bush
George W. Bush was caught on tape explaining to the Swedish prime minister how he won his first presidential election, one of the closest elections in U.S. history. Al Gore was a tough opponent. What made him so formidable was incumbency—Gore had already been in the White House for eight years. Politicians understand the power of incumbency. That’s why George W. Bush was so amazed by his victory. He knew that people like to stick with what they know.
In politics, voters are more likely to stick with the devil they know versus the devil they don’t. In 2014, Congress had one of the lowest approval ratings in history, roughly 11 percent. Despite this, roughly 96 percent of Congress was reelected. People like to stick with what they know.
As the incumbent supplier, you are in a powerful position. Due to loss aversion, the group doesn’t want to give up what they have. Before you consider discounting or matching a new supplier’s aggressive offers, remember loss aversion. The group’s desire for a cheaper price is trumped by their aversion to loss. Here are some tips to help you manage the process as an incumbent.
Value Reinforcement
Decision makers view giving up your value added as a loss. Therefore, remind the buyer of all the value added you deliver. Detail the impact your value added has on their business. Buyers can only fear losing what they are made aware of.
A competitor’s cheaper price is not as compelling as your value added. You offer experiential value added. Your value added is known, they have experienced it, and they own it. It is a known outcome that they receive. The competitor’s solution is unknown. People stick with what they know versus what they don’t unless there is an overwhelmingly compelling reason to change.
There are roughly six people who need to be aware of your value added. Each decision maker must be aware of your value added. Reinforce the value added relevant to each type of decision maker. When reinforcing your value, review the level-specific value added that had the most impact for each person. For example, if a Level-II engineer is part of the process, reinforce the value added that is important to her group such as engineering support, compliance to specification, or design ease. Reinforce your high-level value added for a Level-III business owner by emphasizing profit impact and efficiency. When you are reviewing value added for a Level-I procurement manager, reinforce deliverability, invoicing, and consistency.
Identifying, dollarizing, and presenting your value added should happen before the group starts its decision-making process. If you are bidding on business every year, document and dollarize your value added throughout the year.
Value reinforcement reduces the group’s cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance appears when there are conflicting attitudes, behaviors, or beliefs. These conflicting attitudes increase the likelihood of regret. Cognitive dissonance is commonly referred to as buyer’s remorse. Your challenge is to reinforce the group’s decision to buy and own. You are promoting consonance and avoiding the remorse that comes from dissonance.
The risk of buyer’s remorse increases when the decision is critical and there are several attractive options. You want the group of decision makers to feel great about the decision they made. Provide the group with verbal reinforcement. Tell them, “Your team made the right decision to partner with our organization. Here’s why I say that . . .” Give the group the tools they need to justify the decision to other members of the organization.
Every employee can help reinforce the group’s decision, not just salespeople. When your service department is maintaining your equipment, have them reassure the end users about the decision. When your technical department is providing support, compliment the customer on his decision. From the very first purchase, reinforce the group’s buying decision. If the group already made a great decision, why would they overturn it this time?
Negotiating as the Incumbent
A group of decision makers can make salespeople feel like they have to sell their solution more than the decision makers need to buy it. Buyers do this to gain a negotiating edge. Whoever feels the most pressure makes the most concessions. This is a fundamental negotiating principle. That’s why skilled decision makers attempt to conceal any pressure they feel.
Negotiating as the incumbent favors the seller, not the buyer. The group is less willing to give up what they already have. This is why loss aversion is a critical dynamic of group decision making. When you are the incumbent provider, price is less of an issue.
Researchers conducted an experiment for a major electric utility.3 They asked consumers about their preferences for reliability or lower energy costs. They offered greater reliability for a 30 percent premium or a less reliable alternative for a 30 percent cost reduction. The current system’s reliability was the status quo. In both cases, the majority of consumers chose the existing power solution regardless of price or reliability because it was the status quo. That is the power of incumbency.
Remind customers that you are the incumbent, and make them aware of their other pressure points. Remember that losses loom greater than gains. Frame the conversation in loss terms. The buyer’s aversion toward loss is more compelling than a cheap price. If you are creating value as the incumbent, you don’t need to be the cheapest.
Offensive Selling Strategy
Whether you are the incumbent or new entrant, you’ll need some offensive strategies to win the business. In this section, we dive deeper into offensive selling techniques and how they apply to group decision making.
Group Consensus
Too many salespeople focus on just closing the sale. They believe a signed contract is the only measure of success. Although securing the business is a goal, it’s not the most immediate goal. The immediate goal is consensus, not contract.
Our internal research on group decision making shows that 48 percent of decision makers said gaining agreement and consensus among themselves was their greatest frustration. Although gaining consensus is the decision maker’s greatest frustration, it is the salesperson’s greatest opportunity.
Your immediate goal—small win—is to gain consensus early in the process. Help the group discover their needs and agree on those needs. Once the group agrees, discuss possible solutions and options to satisfy their needs and solve the problems. Gain consensus on how to solve a problem or satisfy the need.
For example, a group is considering a new piece of capital equipment. Your initial goal is to help the group understand their needs and confirm agreement. You could ask the group questions to draw this information out: “What is the pressing need for this new equipment?” “What’s important to your team when making this decision?” “As a group, what outcomes are important to you?” “As a team, how will you define success on this project?” Frame each question from the group perspective, not the individual.
Consensus early in the decision-making process makes it easier to gain consensus later in the process. Cohesive teams are more likely to conform. Early consensus in the process paves the way for team cohesiveness during decision making.
People with common goals work together. Throughout the end-to-end experience, common goals unite groups and generate momentum. Early in the process, establish common goals and timelines. Timelines keep the process moving forward. Parkinson’s law states, “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” When a group is given more time to complete a task, they take more time. If the group is struggling to agree, suggest shorter timelines to motivate the group.
If individual decision makers prefer your solution and the group is unaware of their consensus, their individual preferences matter less. Individual decision makers need to be made aware of their collective agreement. Buyers are more likely to promote your solution if they are aware of everyone’s buy-in. To gain collective buy-in, make the group aware of individual buy-in.
One of Paul’s college roommates was the master of group consensus. He knew that individuals needed to be aware of their shared intentions. One specific example illustrates this point. On a Wednesday evening, Sean started recruiting a group to go out. He went to one room and asked, “Does anyone want to go out?” Most responded with moderate interest. He went to the next room and asked the same question and got a similar response. He repeated the process, going room by room. At each room, he got the same response, moderate interest. Although there was moderate interest, Sean knew that wasn’t enough. He then went back to each room and made each person aware of everyone else’s interest. Once everyone was made aware of the others’ buy-in, everyone formally committed. Everyone had a great night. Sean made everyone aware of the shared interest, and that was all the social proof needed to get the party started.
In group decision making, it’s not enough for each individual to buy in to your solution; other decision makers have to be aware of the buy-in. One CEB survey showed that willingness to advocate for a purchase more than doubled as perceived organizational support for a supplier increased. Knowing that other people support an individual’s decision provides social proof.
Another benefit of sharing this information is that groups operate in fear of making the wrong decision. Making the wrong decision is a form of loss aversion—loss of money, personal status, or market standing. Making individuals aware of everyone else’s buy-in can alleviate some of that fear. It reassures members that the group is moving in the right direction.
Group consensus can only happen if decision makers feel like part of the team. If individual decision makers have the right attitude and want the best team outcome, then you are on the right track. However, organizational silos can divide a group of decision makers. It’s harder to generate consensus in a divided, siloed group of decision makers. You read about silos in Part I, Chapter 4. Silos separate groups of people.
Every company deals with organizational silos. As the salesperson, you’re trying to connect with the group of decision makers, some of whom operate in silos. The way to sell across organizational silos is to first break down the silos.
You can only break down silos that you know exist. Early in the process, it’s critical to identify what silos are present. Once you identify the organizational silos, develop a plan to break them down. A simple and easy way to break down silos is to get people talking to one another. Facilitate interaction between departments. Arrange joint meetings and conference calls. Encourage open communication and discussion in these meetings. Help each department understand how this decision impacts other departments. Once the group communicates, begin establishing common goals they can work toward.
When you break down silos, you are adding value to the customer’s business. Uniting a siloed group positions you as a value-added partner. A collaborative group is a productive group. High-level decision makers view your silo-busting activity as value added that differentiates your solution.
Consensus is key throughout the buyer’s decision-making process. Help the group agree on their needs and how to satisfy their needs. It’s not enough to have individual buy-in; make the group aware of their shared buy-in. A siloed group struggles to gain consensus. A house divided will not stand. Break down organizational silos through communication and common goals.
Building a Web of Relationships
A LinkedIn study revealed that 65 percent of customer relationships rely solely on one person, and only 9 percent of relationships are multilayered.4 You can’t build group consensus with six people if you’re only engaging with one of them.
Salespeople need to focus on building a web of relationships. A web has multiple connection points. Salespeople need multiple contacts to generate support and consensus. The web should also be connected on both sides. The salesperson is the initial contact, but the next step is facilitating symbiotic relationships between your organization and the customer. Connect your engineers with your customer’s engineers. Connect your inside sales team to the company’s procurement department. Connect your high-level decision makers to its high-level decision makers. This web of relationships strengthens and protects the bond between your organization and the customer.
Building a web of relationships means going beyond procurement. If you are just meeting with procurement, you are selling to the department least likely to buy your value-added solution. Unfortunately, salespeople spend most of their time selling to Level-I buyers. In a recent study, we asked salespeople, “What type of decision maker do you spend most of your time with?” Salespeople indicated that most of their time was spent with procurement managers or professional buyers. Although procurement’s primary function is buying product, different decision makers are getting involved. Each decision maker is another strand in the web.
Level-I buyers are more accessible. Their contact information is available to salespeople. They may even initiate contact with you. Procurement dedicates time to meet with salespeople. When it comes to initiating contact with an opportunity, procurement represents the path of least resistance. That’s why salespeople start with procurement and spend most of their time with procurement.
There’s a downside to initiating contact with Level-I buyers. Procurement departments intentionally block salespeople from other departments. In our seminars, this is a common frustration. Procurement will directly tell salespeople, “Don’t call on operations; don’t call on engineering; you only need to interact with me.” You are now stuck selling your value-added solution to the department least likely to buy your value-added solution. To get beyond procurement, start with a different department.
Here are some ideas to help you initiate contact with other decision makers:
• Make joint calls with your teammates. If you’re trying to meet with an operations manager, ask your operations manager to join you. If you’re meeting with the customer’s technical team, ask your technical people to initiate the request.
• Initiate contact with sources of influence. If you are selling an automation solution that increases operational efficiency, then initiate contact with the operations team. It might take longer, but it prevents you from getting stuck in procurement.
• Ask for a referral from another decision maker. A referral increases the likelihood of scheduling an appointment, and it builds instant credibility.
• Offer value-added training. Training is a nonthreatening way to initiate contact with a group of influencers. Training is a great way to bring different departments together and break down silos.
• Request field visits. One of the best ways to understand your customer and meet multiple decision makers is getting into the field. Level-II decision makers will give you the unfiltered version of their needs. Seeing the problems they experience in the field will help you develop a better solution for their team.
• Participate in trade shows. Trade shows are great opportunities to initiate contact with high-level decision makers and influencers. People attend trade shows expecting to network and meet new people.
Understanding the Group’s Organizational Needs and Personal Wants
Imagine sitting in a meeting with a group of your peers. The person who called the meeting is only conversing with one person. He doesn’t ask you any questions, and you feel neglected. You feel as though it’s a waste of time and there is no reason for you to be there. How often do decision makers feel this way?
Conducting a group needs analysis is more in-depth than when you’re dealing with one decision maker. In a group setting, you help the group uncover their common needs. However, you need to understand the group’s needs, wants, and fears. In a group setting, individuals are less likely to focus on their personal needs and wants. They don’t want to appear selfish or self-serving. Therefore, you must assess the needs of the group in a group setting, and personal needs and wants individually.
During the Needs-Analysis stage, consensus is important. To generate consensus, individual decision makers need to understand how this decision impacts other departments. To invoke empathy among the group, have individuals describe the needs of the other department. For example, have the procurement buyer answer the question, “What does the operations team expect from this solution?” Have the vice president of finance answer the question, “What outcomes are important to your engineering team?” By answering these questions, the team gains an in-depth understanding of the different departmental needs. This exercise connects the individuals to each other.
Remember, individuals will veil their true intent so they don’t appear self-serving or selfish. Answer these questions to help you understand the group’s needs. If you’re unsure about the group’s needs, then probe deeper:
• How much pressure is this group experiencing to make the best decision?
• Have there been any highly visible failures caused by the current provider?
• What represents a win for this decision-making group?
• What is the team trying to avoid?
• What are the common goals the group is trying to achieve?
• Who is the most persuasive and dominant voice in the group, and how are you positioned with this individual?
• How will this group be evaluated on their decision?
• What represents a personal win for each decision maker?
• Are there any conflicting personal wins among this group?
Presenting to a Group of Decision Makers
Nobody wants a canned presentation. Buyers prefer a solution handcrafted to satisfy their unique needs. Since today’s buying groups include 5.8 decision makers, you can’t just present one solution, you must present 5.8 solutions—one for each decision maker and influencer. Yes, there will be overlap. Your solution doesn’t change, but how you satisfy the individual needs of each decision maker does change. Personalize for each decision maker.
Prepare a summary statement showing how your solution satisfies the group’s agreed-upon needs. Then, present the level-specific needs for each decision maker. In your presentation, clearly present how your solution meets individual needs. For Level-III’s, stress profitability. For Level-II’s, stress ease of use. For Level-I’s, stress logistical support.
Stress group benefits more than individual benefits. Individual decision makers are more likely to accept their individual benefits if the group benefits as well. If one decision maker personally gains but the others do not, that one is viewed as selfish or self-serving, not a team player. Stressing the personal gains of one decision maker creates tension among the group. You can have those conversations in private.
In your presentation, reassure the group that you will deliver on your promises. In our recent Buying Study, we asked decision makers, “What’s your greatest fear in switching suppliers?” The number one response was the ability to deliver on promises. To alleviate this concern, you must provide proof. If you’re the incumbent supplier, your end-to-end experience is proof positive. For the new entrant, your proof has to be more compelling than the value delivered by the incumbent.
In a group setting, attitudes and beliefs can be intensified. If several individuals express concern about your ability to deliver on promises, this belief is intensified. For that reason, it’s critical to provide proof to support your claims. Here are some additional proof ideas for your presentation:
• Arrange a visit with a current customer. A customer who has a positive experience is unbiased proof that you can deliver on your promises.
• Provide case studies that demonstrate success. Document success stories that emphasize your ability to deliver on promises.
• Use third-party, independent endorsements. Independent tests and agencies provide unbiased support. Third-party endorsements substantiate your claims.
• Include level-adjacent testimonials. Different decision makers have different concerns. If an operations manager requests a testimonial, get a testimonial from another operations manager. A level-adjacent testimonial is more compelling.
VALUE-ADDED SELLING REVIEW AND ACTION ITEMS
1. Group decision making is complex. Each decision maker adds another dynamic. To sell to a group of decision makers, you must understand the group’s dynamics—the need for conformity, groupthink, group polarization, and loss aversion. These dynamics influence the group’s decision.
2. If you are the incumbent, play defense. If you are a new entrant, play more offense. Incumbency is a powerful position. The group will feel pressure to maintain the status quo. As the incumbent, you reinforce your value added and the buyer’s decision to partner with you.
3. Whether you are the incumbent or the new entrant, you must generate consensus among the group. Unite the group by uncovering their common needs and gain consensus on how to satisfy the group’s needs. Make the group aware of their joint buy-in. Building a web of relationships will further bond the customer to your organization. Facilitate symbiotic relationships between your team and the customer’s team. Building up relationships means breaking down silos.
4. Understand the group’s and individuals’ needs. Discuss group needs as a group, but individual needs privately. Individual decision makers are hesitant to share their personal needs and wants in a group setting. Once you identify group and individual needs, present your custom solution to satisfy those needs. Tailor your presentation to focus on group and individual need satisfaction.