Persuasive communication

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Seasoned negotiators know, and researchers have proven, that those who ask for more, get more.

But it’s not limited to negotiation scenarios—it works in any important communication opportunity when you are trying to get compliance from someone, such as asking for help or getting approval from your senior leadership on an important project. You stand a much better chance of accomplishing your aim if you tell others what you want clearly, directly and early in the conversation.

It boosts the chances of getting what you want

Knowing what you want increases the chances you will get it. If you’re explaining a situation to someone, it may be the first time they’ve thought about it, so they simply can’t put the same time into thinking about it that you have. There is a good chance that they will be at least slightly uncertain about what to do—your recommended decision acts as an anchor for their final decision, and anchors can set the terms of the discussion.

It conveys confidence and credibility

Being clear about what you want also makes you look more credible and puts you on a more equal footing with the other person. It makes you an active participant in the value creation process, not simply someone supplying inputs for a decision. Decision makers generally don’t like people who bring problems to them without at least suggesting a solution. They don’t have to agree with the proposed solution, but they will appreciate the fact that you’ve thought about it.

It clarifies your own thinking

In fact, the process of figuring out what to recommend will force you to think deeply and clearly about the situation, including root causes, costs and alternatives, so it should improve the quality of the end product, which is the best ultimate driver of your personal credibility.

It also helps the other party

Think about your “customer” for a minute: the person whom you’re asking to make a decision based on the information you provide. A top executive is essentially an engine for making decisions, and they have to make a lot of them. That does not mean it gets easier for them. They still suffer from decision fatigue just like anyone else, so you do them a favor by simplifying the decision for them.

It saves time

Answering the what question saves a lot of time, both for your listener and for you. It saves time for them, because when they know what you want, they can more easily organize and make sense of the incoming information, and they will let you know what they need to give you agreement.

You do run the risk of getting a quick rejection, but if you were going to end up with a no anyway, it’s better to lose early than late. Besides saving time, it may avoid a protracted debate which makes the other person stick even more to their own position.

It improves the relationship

Asking for what you want may feel pushy, but it actually puts the other person at ease. Being clear up front about your ask respects the relationship by reducing tension. Think of the times that someone has approached you for a request—you know they want something but they don’t get right to the point, so you feel more and more uncomfortable as they beat around the bush, because you’re wondering where they’re going with it.

How to Ask

Don’t be afraid to ask

No one likes rejection, so we often hold back on asking for something because we are afraid of being told no. In fact, according to a series of studies conducted by psychologists Francis Flynn and Vanessa Lake, we tend to overestimate the chance of rejection by about 100%. That’s because we focus on the cost to the other party of saying yes, and don’t focus enough on the cost to them of saying no.[1]

Be smart

Think carefully to figure out what you should reasonably ask for. Books such as Robert Cialdini’s influence tout the benefits of the “Door-in-the-face” tactic, where you ask for something unreasonable so that your real request seems fair by comparison, or its opposite, the “foot-in-the-door” technique, where you ask for something small and then build from there. The problem is that those tactics may work when you’re not going to see the other persona again, but if you use them often where you work, you will soon get a reputation as an insincere manipulator.

Instead, do your research and be able to defend what you’re asking for. Remember that the ask goes hand in hand with the why.

Be direct

Most communication situations benefit from being direct in your ask, so that there is no question in the other’s mind what you expect from them. Directness also shows the other party that you have prepared, and that you’ve carefully thought through the issue.

Make it a statement not a question

Be direct in telling them what your ask is going to be, but don’t frame it as an actual question: “Will you…?” That’s because they don’t have enough information yet, so their default answer is likely to be “No”.

Instead, say something like: “My ask is going to be…” or “Once I’ve presented the options, I’m going to recommend that…”

A big part of life for all of us is buying and selling. One of the easiest and quickest ways to get more out of life is simply to ask for more. Just ask.

[1] Francis J. Flynn, Vanessa K.B. Lake, “If You Need Help, Just Ask: Underestimating Compliance With Direct Requests for Help”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

I just finished reading Shoot for the Moon, a wonderfully gripping tale by James Donovan about the Apollo 11 moon landing. Although I read it for entertainment and personal edification, I did not realize that I would also glean a valuable lesson in strategic persuasion. The story is this: [1]

NASA scientists and engineers began thinking about the problem of getting a man to the moon and back almost as soon as NASA began operations in October 1958, but at the time it was a distant and extremely difficult dream. At that time, the US had managed to get four small satellites into orbit in 13 tries. In fact we didn’t even put a man into space until May 5, 1961, when Alan Shepard went up and came back down.

So you could imagine the shock that hit NASA when just three weeks later, President Kennedy addressed a joint session of Congress and challenged the US to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade. As the book says, they were “aghast”. (Imagine that, a President taking the professionals totally by surprise—no way that would happen today.)

When they began to consider the problem in earnest, there were two principal approaches that were being taken seriously.

The first approach was direct ascent, in which a rocket would take off from earth, travel directly to the moon, then turn around and land. It would then blast off from the moon and return directly to earth. That was the way that most science fiction books and movies envisioned it. It was the most straightforward and “simple” approach, but it would require a massive rocket, far larger than any in existence or in the works at the time. Werner von Braun’s Marshall space center had designed one, but it would probably take to the end of the decade to produce it. But one thing it had going for it is that the most influential committee in NASA, called the Space Task Group, favored it.

The other approach was known as earth-orbit rendezvous, (EOR). Planners envisioned building a space station orbiting the earth, which would be used to assemble a rocket with parts and fuel flown up separately.  It would require more complex maneuvers to permit space craft to rendezvous in orbit, but it could be serviced with the Saturn rocket that was close to development. Werner von Braun’s team was developing the Saturn, so of course they favored EOR, which would require at least two Saturns per mission..

As those two heavyweight groups squared off against each other, a lightweight challenger arose. There was a third way, called lunar orbit rendezvous (LOR), which would involve flying a modular spacecraft to lunar orbit. From there, a smaller spacecraft would separate, descend to the surface, and then rerun an even smaller portion back to the mothership. It was perceived to be much more risky because of the distance involved, and no one took the idea seriously. In fact, when it was presented to NASA by outsiders in 1960, “researchers laughed at the idea.”

In the end, as we all know, the idea that everyone laughed at was the one that won the space race for America, but it was far from a foregone conclusion, and the story of how it happened carries a lot of lessons for anyone trying to get a big idea through a large organization. Let’s rewind the tape back from Kennedy’s announcement and get the rest of the story.

The LOR approach was not totally new. In fact a self-taught Russian mechanic (those Russians again!) had suggested the idea in 1917! The idea was first introduced within NASA by two engineers, Clint Brown and Bill Michael, who wrote abut did not publish a two-page paper about it in April 1960.

Then the hero of our story comes into the picture. A NASA engineer named John Houbolt, began researching the problem and became fascinated with the idea; in the summer of 1960 he had an almost religious epiphany about it, and he vowed to dedicate himself to the task of selling the concept internally. Although he was a quiet introvert by nature, he began evangelizing the idea in “countless briefings, lectures, presentation, and one-on-one talks.” He won a few converts, but not at the influential Space Task Group. His first efforts seemed to fall flat, His listeners were not openly opposed, but no one seemed enthused about it either.

But then the claws began to come out. At a presentation that December, the assistant director of STG all but called him a liar because he took issue with some optimistic figures about weight reduction. He had a point, but it was considered a shocking departure from normal professional behavior.

Emotions were starting to take control on both sides of the discussion. Houbolt pleaded with the STG to just do their homework and look at the data, but for months they refused to do even that.

For a few months, Houbolt kept trying to intensify his efforts. According to the official NASA history, he was energetic, persistent and eloquent—but not shrewd in organizational politics. His first instinct when he failed to persuade others was to find better arguments.

In April he was desperate enough to risk his job by sending a letter to NASA #2 man Robert Seamans, who responded by appointing another committee to consider all possible ideas, which was at least progress. But at their initial meeting, a high level NASA official said “Well, look fellas, I want you to understand one thing. I’ve been right  most of my life about things, and if you fellows are going to talk about rendezvous, any kind of rendezvous, as a way of going to the Moon, forget it.” His words directly violated the charter of the committee, and to their credit they ignored him. They did consider the LOR approach, but rated it a distant third anyway.

In November Houbolt wrote a longer letter to Seamans, fully expecting he would lose his job. Seamans handed it to a new hire named Joe Shea, who “prided himself on going wherever the data took him.” As he talked to others within different NASA groups, they started coming around. Ironically, once momentum finally switched in favor of LOR, the most opposed group started trying to claim it was their efforts that won the day! The crucial point, however waited until June 1962. Von Braun had finally asked to read the papers and was impressed enough that he stunned his own staff at the Marshall Space Flight Center when he publicly came out in support of Houbolt’s idea.

After two years of arguing and campaigning by the proponents of each of the three approaches, NASA Director Jim Webb announced the choice on July 11, 1962. and the US managed to meet its ambitious—some thought impossible—goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Although the decision seems obvious in hindsight, it took a lot of courage, persistence and careful work to get there. When the decision was announced, his division chief said to him: “I can safely say I’m shaking hands with the man who single-handedly saved the government twenty billion.”

But probably his greatest accolade came on July 20, 1969. Houbolt, who by this time had left NASA, was a guest at mission control in Houston when the transmission came in: “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.” As the room erupted  in joyous pandemonium, von Braun turned to Houbolt and said, “John, it worked beautifully.”

What lessons can we draw from this story about strategic persuasion?

• Just because it’s a straightforward engineering problem, does not mean that facts alone will carry the day. Even rocket scientists need persuasion skills. That’s because engineering problems are never just technical. They’re economic, political, social, and psychological problems at the same time, and anyone trying to get something approved in a large organization has to recognize this.
• It takes time to win people over. As I’ve written before, there are zones of acceptance, and most people don’t have sudden conversions. They need to be moved gradually, and trying to move them to far too fast can get them to dig in their heels and even move further away from where you need them to go.
• Even in a large organization, one person can make a huge difference if they have the commitment to persist in the face of huge obstacles.
• Despite what the chief said, no one can do it single-handedly. Houbolt needed to win allies, and those allies helped to put his idea over the top. It’s especially important to share credit. As Harry Truman said, it’s amazing what you can accomplish when you let others take the credit.
• Sometimes you have to bend the rules—especially if the system is stacked against you. But if you’re going to do it, make absolutely sure you have your best arguments and data available, and be able to justify it for the good of the bigger picture.
• Early opposition, if you can survive it, is going to sharpen your idea and its presentation. Sometimes, rather than arguing against the naysayers, you need to make the effort to understand them, learn from them, and possibly incorporate what will make your idea better.

[1] I uncovered additional detail in the official NASA history about the topic, Enchanted Rendezvous, by James R. Hansen. Available here in pdf.