jim.shamlin.com

4: Exchanging and Stating

The chapter opening provides anecdotes that illustrate a couple of techniques to be discussed in this chapter.

Exchanging

Exchanging is a tactic in which a person attempts to influence another person to do something for them and they will offer to do something for the other person. Bartering is the basic example: one person asks another to give him one thing and he offers the other party something else in return. An exchange may included objects, actions, or even obligations/promises. It is entirely ethical to engage in bartering, so long as both parties are fully aware of the terms of the exchange and each does their part.

Because exchange is so conventional, it is often overlooked as a method of influence - but essentially, that is exactly what it is: it is getting someone else to do something for you - to perform a service or transfer ownership of an item. It is perhaps more obvious in an auction setting, when someone is at first reluctant to sell and the buyer has to work on him to get him to accept a price, or when someone is reluctant to buy and the seller must make discounts and offer special deals to get him to purchase. Particularly in the west, there is so little haggling that we overlook the influence tactics: simply to display an item and state a price is an attempt to persuade someone to purchase it.

We also tend to consider influence to be something very subtle and convert, whereas exchanging is done in the open without any coyness. But coyness is not a qualification for influence. Simply stating "I want you to do something for me" is an attempt to influence, and "I will do this for you in return" is a tactic to gain their cooperation.

There's a mention of bribery as exchange, and it is - but what makes bribery unethical is that a person is giving something that he is not entitled to give in exchange for a personal reward. It is not the exchange that makes bribery unethical, but the dereliction of responsibility and misuse of authority: a politician is expected to see to the benefit of his constituents and an executive has a fiduciary responsibility to his brand.

There is mention of leaders who use exchange: offering rewards for actions is quite common. The boss who offers a performance for exceeding quotas, the parent who offers a child a treat for doing his chores, etc. It is not always the authority figure who proposes the exchange: an employee might agree to work in the weekend for a bonus, or the child might propose to take on extra chores in exchange for privileges or a reward.

There's a brief note about the ethics (or lack thereof) of denying a person something to which they are entitled and treating that as a reward. This is not an exchange, but a threat.

The negotiation in commercial exchanges is often over the nature of the items that will be exchanged by each party to a transaction. It's important to keep in mind that by entering into negotiations it is already implicit that the parties are open to an exchange if acceptable terms can be met -they are not arguing over whether an exchange will take place, but over what each party will do for the other until they come to an agreeable exchange.

Asking someone a favor or doing a favor for someone is not an exchange - the person who asks a favor is not offering anything in exchange for what they want. However, there's some argument that an exchange is implicit: asking a favor implies a willingness to do a favor in return. This is the cause of some disagreements, and can be damaging to relationships when a person grants a favor and then makes a demand afterward - it is dishonest of them not to have communicated that they expected an exchange. Moreover, such people often do not communicate the exchange because it is unfavorable to the pother person - they do a small favor and expect a significant one in return, or after doing a favor behave as if they have a blank check to make demands of the other person.

Most relationships imply an exchange of favors - it is expected that a friend will do a favor and that favors will be done with friends - but still, balance is an expectation. If a person constantly demands things and does nothing in return, or makes significant requests, then the relationship is undesirable to the other party and the person who takes advantage may be shunned or anathemized.

Any act of exchange is based on trust between the parties. When something present is granted in exchange for something that is to be delivered in the future, then one person is extending credit to the other and assesses whether they trust the other to make good on their obligation. Even when things are exchanged immediately, there must be trust that what is being given is what is expected rather than a counterfeit. Consequently most relationships begin with exchanges of minor value, to protect each party from loss if the other proves untrustworthy. A successful exchange creates a level of trust, and the next exchange can be for something of greater value.

This does not mean that exchanges of great value cannot take place between strangers, but there is a great deal more formality when such exchanges occur: contracts are written, penalties for default are specified, an external arbiter or authority is used, goods are inspected before acceptance, and so on. This is all to ensure that each party gets what it expected in exchange for what it grants to the other.

In general, people seek equity in their exchanges and are reluctant to take losses except where they perceive it as necessary to establish or preserve a relationship. (EN: This is a bit inaccurate. As in any exchange, each party seeks to get something it subjectively values more than what it is giving in return, but at least enough to justify the cost and effort of the negotiation and the risk of the engagement.)

There's a mention of consulting and arbitration. In the West, the civil court system largely functions to settle private disputes where there are disagreements, but there is still significant demand for private arbitrators, negotiators, and mediators who broker agreements, review contracts, and mitigate disputes outside of the court system. They are often engaged where significant value is involved, or in handling international exchanges.

To be effective in exchanging, an individual must have excellent communication skills - to state things in a manner that is clear to others and to understand what others are saying to him - as well as the psychological skills necessary to build rapport among parties who are in negotiation.

There is a great deal of mythology around negotiation, particularly the believe that a "good" negotiator is one who can take advantage of others in a negotiation. Clearly this is not "good" in terms of ethics, nor is it particularly "good" in terms of effectiveness - as getting value out of one transaction is seldom worth damaging a relationship by cheating others.

The author lists conditions under which exchanging is most appropriate and effective:

There are also instances in which you should avoid proposing an exchange:

And finally, some random tips for exchanging effectively:

Stating

Stating is a technique that is used to get people to accept something as factual. The author declares that "it is surprising how often people are successful [at influencing others] by simply asserting something they want them to believe or accept ... with self-confidence."

In most instances, a statement is made as a preface to making a demand (e.g., "I am an authority, so you should do as I say.") but in other instances, the demand itself can be presented as a statement ("you should do [this]") without any other support.

People are prone to accept statements without challenging simply because it requires less mental effort to accept something as fact than to dispute it. They are also likely to accept statements, even those that seem doubtful, in order to avoid offending others by accusing them of being dishonest.

When a person is known to be dishonest, their word is automatically doubted, though people may not see the need to dispute it openly, they do not accept it. Ironically, words that are used to emphasize honesty often create doubt: a person who says "believe me" or "this is a true story" is signaling that they are desperate to be believed, likely because they are being dishonest, because they expect you to doubt them, and/or because it benefits them to get you to believe in what they say.

What tends to be effective is being serlf-confident, assertive, and bold - and in exactly that order. He estimates that a self-confident person is about four times as influential as a timid one, an assertive about three times as a passive one, and a bold one about twice as effective as one who shows uncertainty.

Making a bold statement is giving an order - it's effective in getting quick compliance, but depends on the perception of the person who gives the order as authoritative and competent.

Where a person who lacks authority or credibility gives an order, it comes across as pretentious and arrogant and instead creates resistance. Likewise, if you have no esteem with others or they have lost respect for you, then stating or giving orders is utterly ineffective and you must rely on other methods of influence until you have regained your esteem. A liar may say something that is true, but will always be doubted because he is believed to be a liar.

There are relationships in which stating and ordering are expected. A football player expects to be bossed around by his coach and a soldier expects his sergeant to bark orders at him - and he will comply without resistance so long as that person maintains their confidence. It's also observed that confidence must be won - it is very often that a successful coach moves to another team and fails miserably, because he doesn't have the confidence of his new players and failed to earn it before attempting to leverage it.

It's suggested that stating becomes a crutch: those who use stating frequently fail to practice any other form of influence and are often at a loss of what to do when people fail to obey their orders or accept what they have to say as being true and important. Moreover, because the practice of stating often requires being authoritarian, many who leverage stating fail to develop positive relationships with others - they become arrogant and detached and are unable to use gentler means of influence because they have alienated their followers.

It's finally noted that stating is a short-term tactic: it can get someone to do something right away, but not get them to engage for a longer term. It is also superficial in that people who comply do exactly as they are told but nothing more - even if they know a more efficient way to accomplish a goal, or even when they recognize that the orders are doomed to fail.

Stating has its uses, but they are few and seldom. The author suggests the following criteria for stating:

And then, some tip for stating:

JIM.SHAMLIN.COM
DISCLAIMERS · CONTACT