Influencer part 3

So today we had Kerry Patterson teaching more of the Influencer. Today we get into what you can do to help influence change. It turns out that we really under-utilize all of the ways we can help ourselves and others change. A lot of this starts with our diagnosis of the problem.

The problem is that we act as if our problems have only one cause. Greg doesn't empty the dishwasher because he doesn't care. So then we look for one simple solution that will fix it. That is what they call a fundamental attribution error. In reality, most problems are way more complex than that. A drug addict doesn't just lack the willpower, they may be in an environment that makes it tough to make the change. They might also not have the skills they need to change or the social support. We too often attibute things like this to a matter of sheer willpower, but there are many other things that contribute. Once we diagnose these several things, then we can work on a prescription.

So now the model. There are generally two reasons we do anything: motivation and ability. We want to do something and/or we are able to do something. The cool thing that they found is that you can expand that a little to add three forces to motivation and ability. These are personal forces, social forces, and structural forces. I'll recap each:

1. Personal Motivation - it starts here. We have a hard time doing things we don't want to do. So when you hear somebody saying that they don't want to do something or that their heart isn't in it, it is a problem with their personal motivation. This is the easist to diagnose and we tend to really try and hit this one. The key, is opening up the rest of these.
   
2. Personal Ability - do they have the knowledge, skills, and strength to do it? For example, healthy eating requires willpower for sure, but what skills are required? Knowing how to cook, how to shop, how to plan meals, etc. could all be affecting the person's ability to really eat well. A person might want to stop being addicted to something, but do they have the skills to get them out of the addiciton? It is a really interesting concept of moving beyond just motivation.
   
3. Social Motivation - This is where you ask if other people are encouraging or discouraging the right behavior. Kerry shared a video from Dr. Wansink (Mindless Eating) who has studied eating behaviors. He shows how we tend to eat more when we are with other people than when we are by ourselves. Just think about going to dinner with a group of people. You might be full, but you will continue to eat as long as others are eating. Even though you are full - it is just a social thing. Another interesting example that Patterson brought up was that we encourage the wrong behaviors because we don't want to really confront them. His example was a guy who gives 4-5 minute opening prayers at church despite requests from church leaders to keep it brief. The problem is that when the bishop gets up to the mic and says, thank you so-and-so for that wonderful prayer. Great, next time it will be 8 minutes! Are the people around you or the person wanting change encouraging the right behavior?
4. Social Ability - This is pretty similar, but we are specifically looking at whether others enable us. The key word there is enable. We watched a video from Dr. Wansink again talking about how kids are getting heavier. It is easy to point the finger at fast food companies or whatever, but the fact is that there is usually one person in the home who is the food gatekeeper and controls about 75% of the food choices the family makes. That gatekeeper (usually the mother) has a HUGE influence on the nutrition of the whole family. Nobody, especially a loving mother, wants to say "I'm a bad mom," or that they are harming thier children, but in fact, if that person is not making good nutritional choices (cookies greet kids coming home from school vs. fruit for instance) they are a major part of the problem. This gatekeeper is enabling the bad behavior by their food selection and preparation. So now we are maybe seeing that there are a lot of sources to a problem, and therefore we will have to think of a lot of strategies to solve them.
   
5. Structural Motivation - These are the non-human motivators. Things such as pay, promotions, bonuses, prozes, presents, treats that all encourage the right behaviors and the inverse would discourage the wrong behaviors. We have to be careful about how we use this source of motivation. If you are not careful, your kids are studying for the money they get for good grades and not the knowledge. "Of course I never pass the ball, my dad pays me $20 for every goal I score!" Beyond punishment and rewards, the environment really affects us. Patterson had us think about an inner-city, low-income family. They consume far less fruits and vegetables than other families. Why is this? Do they not like them? More likely, those things cost more. There are also less good grocery stores in inner cities and many of the groceries end up being purchased in 7-Eleven or White Hen. Interesting stuff.
   
6. Structural Ability - The non-human enablers. This is dealing with whether the environment provides the tools, facilities, and space that enables good behavior or bad behavior. They introduced a term: propinquity. This deals with the actual space you are in. If the people you work with very closely are located in a building a mile away, that makes it harder. Back to Dr. Wansink. He did a study where he took smart grad students and taught them for 90 minutes about how you will eat more out of a bigger container. So if you have chex mix in a gallon container, you will eat more than if it is served in 2 half-gallon containers. Six weeks later, he invited the students over for a super bowl party and served . . . chex mix. He divided them up into two groups, one where the chex mix was in gallon containers and the others in half-gallon ones. They figured out a clever way to weigh the amount of snacks they chose and found that the group with the gallon containers took on average 53% more mix. That is 278 more calories, in just the first round. All due to the size of the serving container. That's why one of the tricks to portion control is to use smaller plates - makes you think there is more.
   

To put all of these together for us, we saw another video of somebody re-creating the Milgram Studies. I'm not going to recap the whole study, but the idea was that he wanted to see if people would torture and kill others. Most all of us would say there is no way we would ever torture people, but he showed that under the right influences, he could get 2/3 of his participants (normal people) to do it. The amount went up to 90% if they were with another person who was totally willing to do it. [Keep in mind this study was not waterboarding, but adminitering increasing electrical shocks to someone in increasing voltage even after they have protested and gone silent - all in the name of science and the study - you should read about it - fascinating]. We all would like to think we are in the 1/3 who wouldn't do it, but the numbers (which have been confirmed in subsequent studies) hold strong. If there are three of us talking, chances are two would go all the way. Crazy. The point to all this is that you really can influence (for good or evil I suppose) other people when using multiple sources or strategies.

The key, then, is to diagnose looking for all six of these sources, not just motivation. If we can correctly find out why we are not doing the desired behavior (or the "vital" behavior) we have a much better chance of making real and lasting change. Motivation has to be there, but we have to address the other factors and sources as well. Tomorrow we should see how to put all of this together.

Influencer part 2

Just got back from the second round of Influencer. This one was run by Al Switzler who co-authored the book. Today focused a little more on the big picture - how to stop talking and start teaching.

Al began by asking us how we usually try to influence others. We have a lot of bad strategies, but our go-to form of influence seems to be either talking (lecturing, nagging) or coercion. That is what we go to when we find resistance. That is the problem - it doesn't work as well as we would hope. The solution that Al posited is to replace the lectures, threats and nagging with experiences.

If we look at our strategies of persuasion on a scale, verbal persuasion would be on the least effective end. For example, you might tell your child "don't run into the street." On the other end of the scale you have direct experience. This is the most persuasive method - what better way to learn not to run into the street than by having a bad experience. This has obvious limitations. You don't want to learn of the negative effects of drugs by first becoming a heroin addict. So what do we do to find a way to help the child see the effects of running in the street without actually running in the street? The answer - or the in between method is the vicarious experience.

An example used in the presentation was two health care companies. Each made a presentation to try and motivate the entire staff to improve the quality of care. The first was a dry power point with lots of stats and the directer lecturing (boring). The next was a video of an actual patient who had experienced a heart attack. As you hear her narrate the story, her family and each of the people who cared for her (EMT, cardiologist, accountant, nurses, lab tech, etc.) started to file in and stand with her in the spotlight. It was a touching story and talked about all of the little things that each did to make her stay more comfortable. I know this is hard to describe without showing the video, but the second made a connection with your emotions. It was much more effective - and would be more effective for the staff than just seeing stats.

Another example is McDonald's. Their executives are required periodically to go and work the drive thru at a restaurant. They get real info about what actually happens. In one instance an exec noticed that the napkins were placed in an inconvenient spot and he was spending all day grabbing those. When he asked about that, the manager told him that they had send numerous emails to get it changed. A week later, the napkins problem was solved. It was that direct experience that really moved beyond the data. It added heart. This is what they mean by a vicarious experience. It taps into something, makes that connection and really influences you.

Now, you have to keep in mind that if verbal persuasion works, use it. When it doesn't work, then you need to change your strategy. Don't just get louder and repeat your lectures. There is a definition of insanity that it is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. They call this desperation. What it turns out to be . . . is nagging. We all know how effective that is.

So how do you get this vicarious experience. They suggested two ways: a field trip, and stories. The McDonald's story is a good example of the field trip. Harley Davidson's engineers are also sent to dealerships to talk to the mechanics so that they can get real experience with what they see on a regular basis.

To apply this, suppose you have a daughter that is having a hard time wanting to practice her piano. You come home and she is watching TV when she should be practicing. What do you do? Our default is usually to go to the verbal persuasion: nagging, threatening, counting, etc. How effective is this? So what would be some non-verbal persuasion tactics you could use? What about taking her to a concert where she could see somebody playing music she likes. Maybe you could arrange to talk to them after about how much they practice. You could play with the daughter. You could sit and listen. You could have her play on the phone for grandma. You could allow her more control over the songs she learns. Interesting. The defaut is going to verbal because it is easy and we are "good" at it. The trick is getting beyond that and creating vicarious experiences that will really motivate.

The other way is to tell stories. Stories have been used to teach forever. Just look at the bible. When you think of a training or a class you enjoyed, usually it is the stories that you remember. If you can figure out a way to either create your own stories or stories of others, that really helps. Research shows that hearing stories fires the same way in our brain as if we were experiencing the event ourselves. Hence the benefit of telling stories.

So that's the recap of day two. Move beyond just verbal persuasion to try and provide experiences which will really motivate people (and ourselves) to change. More to come . . .

Influencer part 1

One of the benefits of being on campus during education week is that I can cherry pick some classes here and there. One that caught my eye is a class based on the book Influencer by Patterson, Grenny, Maxfield, McMillan, & Switzler. I was recently able to attend a multi-day training on this and I will be teaching this class to BYU employees. Which means a great opportunity to hear the ideas from the horse's mouth. Why not a quick summary of the classes, posted here? I fully recommend the book and the training which you can find here.

The book is about how to get people to change (and really, how to get ourselves to change). Who wouldn't want a little help with this? Today, Joseph Grenny gave an introduction to the book and started with the first concept:

1. The best way to improve results is not to focus on results, but the behaviors that produce them, and
2. Even with complex and long-standing problems, just a few vital behaviors can lead to enormous change.

What does that mean exactly? How many of us have bad habits that we would like to change? How about bad habits of others we would like to change? He gave an example of a friend of his that has a son who is addicted to drugs and wants to change but doesn't know how. Talk about a tough situation. How about a gambling addiction? How do we lose and keep off those pounds that are taking up residence around the midsection? It turns out that we all have theories about how to fix the problems. The problem with that is that we usually can't articulate our theory, and even if we can, they don't work. So what do we do?

The authors looks at this questions and did a lot of research from famed influencers across the world. Dr. Hopkins who has worked to eliminate the Guinea worm from the world, Don Berwick who has successfully helped health care professionals reduced the number of deaths in hospitals, Mimi Silbert who has helped hardened criminals stay out of jail and out of trouble with a 91% success rate (all of these stories are found in the book).

What they found: They were able to identify key behaviors that when changed, let to HUGE change. He shared a story of how his 3-year-old asked him to help color one day. As he got down to color, his son instructed him on how to make a high-quality picture. You can scribble and go as fast as you want in the middle, but when you get near the lines, slowing down makes it much much better. The key there is that there are moments when you have to slow down and really focus on a particular thing. Little behaviors can have a big effect. So what we have to do is not focus on results so much, but what are the vital behaviors that get us to the results - like slowing down when you get to the lines. We have to find the lead domino that will lead to the other actions we want to do to get results.

How do you identify a vital behavior? It will be something that leads to results, beats self-defeating patterns, and causes other positive behaviors to follow naturally. Easy, right?

The trick is to look at your thing you want to improve (say becoming healthy and shedding some extra pounds) and looking for the crucial moments. You aren't tempted to eat junk 24/7, but usually at certain times of the day. So if you get snacky at 4:00 pm, you can focus there first. Here is where this gets really cool. Look for what they call positive deviance. Look for people who could have the same problem, but don't. They have figured something out (or you do research, or you look back at your own life when you didn't have the problem - what were you doing then that you aren't doing now). Find out what they do, and apply it. So you want to find who to look for as an example, figure out when those critical moments are when a different behavior might make a big difference downstream, and then find out what the positive deviants do during these moments that others don't.

For example Senor Grenny shared that when he is on the road, he struggled with exercising. So what is the crucial moment? He found that if he could set his alarm and get up at 5:30 and pull on his shorts and get to the front door of the hotel and take that first step, he would exercise. It is that series of events that improves his overall health. So then he would work with how to make that happen (upcoming).

The key then, is to realize that there is a good way to influence ourselves and others. And it starts by identifying the vital behaviors that lead to the results that we want. What one thing would make the biggest difference downstream if I could just do it. Then we can figure out how to do that one thing that will really start us off to the results we want. More to come . . .

Great Time Mgt Lecture

I've been meaning to watch this video from Randy Pausch for a while. I was able to squeeze it in a few minutes here and there, but it really is a great lecture about time management. I blogged about the Last Lecture before that you can check out too. When it comes down to it, time is the most important commodity we have, so why not manage it well? I have a lot of work to do in this area. After watching it, I have several things am starting to do today. Check it out:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5784740380335567758&hl=en

PG Decides Not to Allow "Skyscrapers"

I am disappointed to learn that Pleasant Grove will not be allowing any sort of zoning change to it's downtown area. You remember, the zoning that would have made it possible (although not likely) to build a monster 10-story skyscraper. According to the article, city officials caved to the desires of those who apparrantly can't see to the year 2020. Keep in mind that I love PG, but the downtown area really isn't much. I just don't see what they are worried about. Does building business buildings invite the gangs to move in? More traffic? It's not like they are seeing gridlock in the streets of PG as it is. Well, good luck with the new advisory board which will effectively kill any real progress. At least I know PG won't change much - I suppose that's comforting in a way.

FYI - I came about half an hour from being the Community Development Director for Pleasant Grove. I was fresh out of grad school - having just earned my Master of Public Administration degree. My uncle was on the city council and suggested that I apply for the job. I had done the same earlier for a Zoning Inspector only to lose it to some other guy with actual experience - whatever. So I didn't have any solid job prospects and no real background in city planning or urban development, but I figured why not. I felt like I could pick up those details.

So I applied and was interviewed. My uncle told me that it was down to me and a PHD in urban planning with all kinds of experience. That fact that I was even being considered was pretty amazing. I think I had going for me that I was a local and of course that my uncle was on the council. They offered the job to the other guy who turned them down. That left me. The mayor had decided to give me the call when the other guy called back and accepted the job after all. Really, he did me a favor. Not only would hit have been a very challenging job, and I would have been managing 30 year veterans in the field, but my uncle went on to be the mayor. I stayed out of the decision-making process, but it would have been uncomfortable to be working for him in a public position. In any case, sometimes I wonder what it would have been like to be in charge of some of these plans. Interesting for sure. Maybe that's why I'm so fascinated with the goings-on in PG.

New Orleans Round-up

I was just in New Orleans for a couple of days for the first time. It is definitely more interesting to go there on business than Atlanta. No offense Atlanta, but NOLA is more interesting. Now I say interesting because it is so different from Chicago or Utah - which is most of my experience in living places. We stayed in the French Quarter at the W. Not the big W that is a normal hotel - at the French Quarter W which is much smaller and was an old mansion or something. Being there on business I didn't have the chance to really spend any time sight-seeing, but we did eat at Mr. B's (BBQ shrimp that was literally finger-licking-tacular) and a couple of po boys.

We also took a stroll along Bourbon St. Monday night around 8:00. There were a surprising number of people just milling around between the bars and strip clubs. Pretty much the dirtiest place I've ever been. I wanted to take a shower after being there. I could never walk down that street again and be just fine. It reminded me of that scene in the old Pinnocio cartoon where he goes to that street or carnival (fuzzy memory here) and sees all kinds of indulgences readily available. I mean, I thought Vegas was bad, but this was just a glimpse into one of the circles of hell. It's sad really. Drunk people moving around like zombies. It was strange. Am I being too harsh? No. Larry Flint has a few "establishments" there. Need I say more?

The good news though, is that the business part went well. I have been sweating this project for a while and it was good to put faces to names and establish relationships. An interesting trip.