7: Meta Programs - Make Loaded Dice Even Heavier
(EN: I'm leery, as I have run across "metaprograms" before, as it was a passing fancy in the business world in the late 1980s and has surfaced under various names as the consultants [laymen without scientific credentials] who developed the system constantly try to repackage it. The theory is wholly unscientific and based on observation, but its proponents attempted to sanctify it by distorting and misrepresenting valid research. This clumsy attempt at deception caused the entire system to be regarded as snake oil. That aside, meta-programs and the language-and-behavior model are plausible theories and had it not been for the attempt to misrepresent them as scientific they might have persisted and gained credibility, perhaps with some modification as valid science validated or refined them. That said, I'll include reading notes from this chapter, but likely drop any intimation that it is scientific and treat it as theory.)
The author offers a number of rapport techniques that she feels to be highly effective because they enable you to move "deeply into another person's world." It is one of her favorite theories, and she cites stunning results as a result of their application in marketing and sales. She describes them as advanced and sophisticated techniques that can have a "profound" effect.
In a basic sense, meta-programs (MP hereafter) are a set of filters and stored procedures that influence the way we perceive the world and the way we react to our perceptions. It is far easier to influence someone if you communicate in terms of their existing MP rather than challenging them to disregard their own ideas and adopt yours instead - because it is friendly rather than hostile.
This approach is effective regardless of the existing power relationship precisely because it does not rely on authority. Those who have formal authority feel that it entitles them to impose their will upon others and use threat to gain their compliance - and this becomes a crutch to which they will often rest upon, failing to develop other muscles of influence. Those who lack formal authority, and those who have it but choose not to use threat, must step into the world of those who they are trying to persuade rather than forcing their own world upon them.
Some random bits as a preface to the discussion:
- MP are not binary - While each MP presents two perspectives that are contradictory, most people do not take one extreme or the other, but find a position between them.
- MP are contextual - Each persons MP vary according to the social context: among friends, colleagues, and family.
The original researchers developed a list of 60 MP, but the author is going to focus on the six that are most related to professional relations.
Toward and Away
This MP contrasts those who move toward opportunities versus those who seek to move away from failure. Thinks "salesperson" versus "accountant."
Those who move "toward" have energy and momentum, lead by selling a compelling vision, and inspire others to take action. On the downside, they can often have their head in the clouds, so enchanted by the vision that they disregard what it takes to make it happen, are impatient with those who don't share their enthusiasm, and tend to dump the work on other people. Words such as gain, achieve, and attain resound with those of this MP. They may also be so focused on the next task that they fail to appreciate the consequences (positive or negative) of the one they just completed.
Those who move "away" are grounded and realistic - they are often the "voice of reason" that cautions others to unseen risk. However, they are often overcautious and slow to take action, and can be a real wet blanket. Words such as avoid, prevent, and consider resound with the "away" crowd.
To find out whether a person is toward or away, ask "what do you want in your work?" The way that they respond will clearly indicate their interests. A toward person will speak of the challenge of the opportunity. An away person will speak of the size and history of the firm and the comfort they sought to gain in taking the position.
Options and Procedures
This MP considers the way a person deals with liberty - whether they want to have many options to choose from, or would prefer to follow established and detailed procedures?
Those who prefer options often see many ways to solve problems and make things happen - but they can also be superficial, become paralyzed by the variety of choice, or fail to dedicate themselves to choosing and sticking to a plan. They are particularly bad at leadership because they provide no single and clear direction to others, but seem to be vague and constantly shifting. Words such as choice and possibility resound with them.
Those who prefer procedures find safety in a tried-and-true process, and can be counted upon to stick to their guns regardless of what happens. This, too, is their primary weakness: they are so focused on following the plan they fail to recognize that the plan isn't working, develop tunnel-vision, and become paralyzed when procedures are in conflict. Words such as "reliable" and "proven" resound with them.
To find out whether a person values options or procedures, ask "Why did you choose your current job?" Ask about buying a car, and an options person will list the set of criteria or qualities they were seeking to gain. A procedures person will tell a story detailing their buying process - why the needed to buy a car, the various things they did in selecting one, etc.
General and Specific
This MP contrasts those who see the forest to those who see the trees.
Those who prefer to be general are comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, they take a broad perspective and see to the long range. However, hey can also be glib and vague, failing to work out the details. Words such as "overview" and "big picture" appeal to them.
Those who prefer to be specific are more granular. They are excellent in seeing the finer details that others miss, and are good at planning specific actions to accomplish a goal - but they can also get lost in those details and lose sight of the goal. Words such as specifically, exactly, and precisely appeal to them.
The author has no specific question find out whether a person prefers general or specific, but you can ask a wide variety of questions and consider how they respond. A general person will give you a broad overview and a specific person will give you far more detail than you really wanted.
Active and Reflective
This MP considers the amount of time an individual prefers to invest in problem-solving: whether they want to leap to action right away or spend a long time in analysis prior to take taking action.
The active type makes a great cheerleader, rallies the troops to charge, and considers time to be of the essence. Naturally, they often fail because they were too hasty, did not consider the risks, and left out key people who could have helped them to succeed. Phrases such as "get it done" and "don't wait" are often on their lips. They tend to speak in short sentences with little detail.
The reflective type gathers and analyzes information, carefully assessing the details, and can generally be counted on to make a sound decision ... eventually. The problem is that such people often have "analysis paralysis" and slow to make action. As such, their leadership potential is often overlooked and they are relegated to passive order-taking roles. They use terms such as consider, understand, and think about. They tend to speak in longer sentences with elaborate detail.
Again, the author has no specific question to detect whether a person is active or reflective, though questions about their process (how do you do a task) will reveal whether they charge forward or take time to plan their course of action.
Internal and External
This MP considers motivations - whether a person feels they have accomplished something when the outcome meets their personal standard, or whether getting praise and rewards from others is the measure of success.
The internally motivated person is often self-directed and low-maintenance, but it can be tough to manage and incentivize them because they are confident and secure in their own assessment of performance and do not need (or particularly trust) anyone else's validation. If the company's idea of quality does not match his own definition of quality, he may be incorrigible. The author suggests that phrases such as "what do you think" or "it's up to you" appeal to this mentality.
The externally motivated person is easily managed, and if there is a clear connection between reward and action they can be counted on to go for it. However, such a person lacks drive and vision and needs someone else to show him the way and offer an incentive - no reward, no action. They are keen on terms such as recognition, award, and acknowledgement.
To find out whether a person is internally or externally motivated, ask "How do you know you've done a good job?" An internal person will speak of standards of their own creation, or may not be able to articulate them and respond with "I just know" or "When I am satisfied." An external person will speak of praise and rewards they have earned.
Sameness and Difference
This MP considers an individual's desire for tradition or innovation. (EN: It seems rather poorly defined, though it still seems significant.)
A person motivated by sameness seeks to maintain the status quo and fit in with others, as well as task that allow them to measure themselves against an existing benchmark. They tend to be excessively fearful and rigidly resistant to change. They like words such as "stable" and "consistent." They also tend to stick in the same job for a long period of time, decades or more, and are often in supporting roles.
A person who seeks difference is innovative, and sees the value rather than the danger of making chances. On the downside, they can be rebellious and challenge rules and procedures simply because they are the established way of doing them, even if there's nothing wrong or inefficient about the status quo. They favor terms like disruptive, difference, change, and revolution. They also tend to seek new challenges rather than staying in the same position for long, and prefer to be where the action is rather than in a supporting role.
She asserts that most Americans (she tosses out 60% as an estimate) fall into a midpoint she calls "sameness with exceptions." That is, they tend to favor sameness, but make exceptions so long as they make sense and when they are confident the change will result in something better. They tend to like change on a cycle of once every five to seven years in most contexts.
To find out whether a person values sameness or difference, ask "What is your relationship between your work this year and your work last year?" She suggests that this must be asked verbatim and no further explanation given when you ask. A sameness person will spend more time describing the things that did not change at all, and a difference person will spend more time describing what has changed.
Narratives: Meta-program Mismatch
The author tells a string of stories about an executives who were at odds with others (mainly superiors and peers) because she constantly attempted to explain herself to them based on her own MP, rather than finding out theirs and speaking on their own terms.
The stories are contrived and aggrandized, but the point is well taken that if your MP are diametrically opposed to those whom you wish to motivate or communicate, you will not be very successful. Changing your language to match another person's MP will help you to be heard because you are speaking in terms that resound with them.
One story specifically speaks about marketing efforts, which attempt to make products attractive based on the values of the company, rather than the values of their customers. This is a widespread problem for many firms, particularly those who attempt to sell to everyone and lack a clear concept of their most important market segments.