jim.shamlin.com

6: Consulting and Peer Pressure

Consulting and alliance building are also social methods of influence but they differ from those described in the previous chapter because they engage another person with the understanding that there is temporary collaboration without an ongoing relationship. Consulting consists of asking or offering advice and alliance building consists of asking or offering practical assistance - both are done for a specific purpose, and the engagement terminates when the purpose is accomplished.

Consulting

While it seems simple enough, you can change a person's behavior "profoundly" simply by asking the right question at the right time. People often go about their days without thinking or considering what they are doing in more than a superficial manner. The right question makes them stop and think and consider changing their behavior.

The value of a question is it is less aggressive than a statement - to ask "are you sure that's right?" is much less offensive than saying "you are wrong." People also feel flattered to be asked things, as it plays to their ego, and they feel greater commitment to something when it is based on "their" ideas than someone else's, even though their thinking may have been guided. People are far more amenable to things when they think it is their own idea. (EN: however, this method is often used very badly - the questions are loaded or leading, which seems manipulative.)

There is a rather long list of examples, some of which seem quite good:

• Motivation questions cause the person to consider the reason something was done - what led you to make that decision? What do you suppose he was trying to accomplish? What factors were the most important in your decision? If you had it to do over, what would you change?
• Challenge questions cause a person to rethink their assumptions or consider different information - why has it always been done that way? Why can't it be done differently? What do you think prevents you from doing that? What if that weren't true? What might happen if you fail? What might be the downside?
• Outcome questions cause a person to rethink what they are trying to accomplish - what are you trying to achieve? What will you benefit from achieving that? What will it take to do that? Is it worth the effort?
• Alternative questions open a person to other courses of action - what if the goal were different? What else might we do with the time/resources? What if we stopped having these meetings? How else might the goal be accomplished?
• Consequence questions causes a person to think of things other than their expected outcome - What collateral damage might that cause? What if the plan fails? How are other people affected by this? What if obstacles arise that prevent you from doing that?
• Exploratory questions often get a person to review their assumptions - How does one thing lead to another? Why is this the best/only course of action? Why do you think someone refused to support your plan?
• Breadth questions cause a person to disclose things they may be reluctant to discuss or think about - What other reasons are there for doing this? What else is going on? Are there any factors you're not considering? Are you sure that's all there is to it?

There's a brief mention of statements disguised as questions - to ask a person "You only have two choices, so which is better?" is intended to limit thinking instead of expanding it. By asking that question you are attempting to get them to ignore other alternatives and directing the conversation to the two items you've named, generally with one of them being a straw man and the other being the course of action you desire them to take. This is plainly manipulative.

He also mentions that questions can be overused, to the point that the other person feels like the subject of a hostile interrogation. When you ask question after question after question, particularly when you have to rephrase a question to get the answer you want, it becomes clear that you are being passive-aggressive and the other person will shut down or become defensive.

Questioning can also be a tactic to show interest and build connections. For example, when a person states they enjoyed working with you on a project, as simple "me too" effectively ends the conversation. But if you ask "what did you enjoy the most?" then they remain engaged. You will also learn more about them (what is important to them, and what motivates them to engage). When you show interest in people, people reciprocate by showing interest in you, or at least feel flattered by the attention.

Asking questions is also a way to overcome your own blind spots and false assumptions. A consultant who comes to a firm thinking that he already understands the problem and knows a solution practices "cognitive filtering" and ignores anything that does not support his foregone conclusions, which may be very wrong. You can very often gain permission to interrogate someone thoroughly by stating that you want "a fresh set of eyes" or "a second opinion" and then grill them without revealing anything you think.

He then mentions the Socratic method of teaching, that is often used with advanced students. (EN: "advanced" is worth stressing - the student must already have a sufficient amount of knowledge. Failure and frustration are the result in instances where the student lacks the basic information necessary to draw a conclusion.) By asking questions of students, the teacher challenges them to utilize the information they have or undertake the research effort to find more information. It's also noted that the Socratic method leads to an exploration: so long as the student has applied a sufficient amount of thought to the problem, his solution is irrelevant - it's about the effort, not the result.

The most common misuse of this method is a game of hide-the-ball, in which the instructor already knows what answer he wants to hear and will continue to ask questions of the student until they guess what he has in mind. When used in a persuasive context, this is "manipulative questioning" that does far more harm than good and utterly undermines the value of the technique. A person does not feel ownership of an idea when he has been browbeaten with questions, and before long his objective is not to solve the problem, but terminate the conversation and sever connections with the interrogator.

He returns to the concept of collaboration through questioning - when you ask people questions, they feel they have worked with you to create the solution, and are more inclined to support the solution. Sharing a "draft version" of a proposal to get feedback also gives people a sense of being included, even though they generally do not make many changes, having had the opportunity to provide input gives them a sense of having consented to the proposal. However, this tactic can backfire when they provide input contrary to the proposal and you fail to account for it - being asked and ignored is far more offensive than never being asked at all.

Consulting is so common that being a "consultant" has become a profession. It is generally believed that a consultant is merely in a servant role - he has no long-term agenda and is above organizational politics, and will give a fair ear to everyone. Using a neutral party to consult can often enable you to gain access to and influence over people who are typically hostile to your agenda. (EN: this is not entirely true, as consultants are often hired by someone to champion their agenda, or at the very least they tell people what they want to hear in the interest of being re-engaged or recommended to others. They are beholden to whomever hired them - even if it's a committee, they can generally discover which people in the group are the most influential and seek to ingratiate themselves to them.)

Some consideration of combined tactics is made:

• Consulting can become particularly powerful when used in combination with socializing and relationship building. A person who is engaged with a consultant has assumed a subordinate role in a standing relationship with an expert advisor and is often subject to their influence.
• Consulting usually relies upon logical appeal. The consultant gathers information from his client, then puts together a proposal, and then sells the proposal based on its rational connection to the information that was gathered.
• Consulting combined with exchanging is common, but less effective. When the consultant engages in facilitating exchanges, he is acting as a negotiator or mediator between the decision-makers. He can exert some influence in resolving their conflict, but his ability is generally limited to

The limitations of consulting have been mentioned, but for emphasis: consulting takes longer than some other techniques and you have less control over the outcome. You are not giving specific direction, but helping others to choose a direction that is productive, but may not be exactly what you wanted. When there is a specific desired solution, consulting is not the appropriate tactic.

There is some argument over how much control you abdicate when you work in consulting mode. If you maintain control, you are not really consulting but manipulating others so that they have the false impression that they had input. If you abdicate all control, you are not influencing things at all and may simply be spinning up a cloud rather than helping things along.

Some of the conditions in which consulting is suitable:

• You have no authority and are attempting to get cooperation from others, particularly those who outrank you
• You have formal authority over experts, and you need them to apply their expertise rather than simply perform tasks.
• You have formal authority and are wanting to mentor/develop a person
• When what you want to achieve may run afoul of cultural norms or personal proclivities, such that proposing something directly will arous hostility and defensiveness
• When you need to motivate people to solve a problem and are largely indifferent to the exact means by which they do it
• When you are attempting to influence many people over a long period of time

Tips for Consulting:

• Genuine listening is necessary - it's about learning what the other person has to say, not manipulating to get them to say what you expect or want to hear
• Ask open-ended questions that require more than a short answer and that may require some thought to answer
• Avoid leading questions that imply the answer that you want to hear
• Probe deeply. The initial answer to a question is often superficial, and it requires some work to get the other person to explore the underlying issues.
• Have an agenda, but not a script. The conversation will go where it goes and needs to be natural - you should especially avoid asking questions that are already answered or rendered irrelevant by something that was said.
• If you ask for information, use it or at least account for it. Do not ask questions and then ignore the answers. Also, remember to give credit where credit is due.

Peer Pressure

(EN: The author originally called this section "alliance building" but his discussion on that topic is short and superficial before he switches to speaking about using peer pressure, on which he is extensive.)

Alliances are temporary relationships in which parties agree to collaborate or assist one another in achieving a specific goal that is in both their interests. This is different to a relationship, in that it is not vague and ongoing, though alliances can lead to friendships that continue after the objectives of the alliance have been accomplished.

The practical basis of an alliance is that neither party is capable of accomplishing a desired outcome on its own, but needs the resources of the other party. The degree of control that each party has is variable - there are instances in which one party makes all the decisions and gives all the orders and the other simply complies, and other instances in which decision-making is more democratic and balanced between both.

There are also psychological tendencies of people to imitate and collaborate with others, especially in ambiguous and uncertain situations. This may be passive imitation, in which one party merely follows the other's lead or mimics their behavior, or one person may actively campaign to get others to imitate them. Whatever the case, people feel safer doing something when other people are doing it as well.

The author gives the example of a standing ovation at a performance. Most people sit and applaud, but are too self-conscious to be the first to stand. When one person stands, others will join him until the entire audience is joining. Or if others don't join him, he will sit back down. Or in some instances, he may speak or motion to others to join him in standing.

(EN: There has been a number of studies and experiments on this phenomenon. The first person to act is a "leader" but may not be conscious of his decision - he is usually acting without thinking, and being totally self-absorbed and unaware of others, and feels awkward if he becomes socially conscious while acting alone. The second to act is the "first follower" whose imitation encourages others to imitate - this is the behavior of the first person will spread to the crowd. After that people join gradually, as each person has a personal level of conformity that requires a certain number of people or proportion of people to join. There are stalwart individualists who refuse to join even if they are the only person not participating and hopeless conformists who will follow others without thinking at all.)

The author switches to talking about peer pressure, which is an implicit form of alliance. Street hawkers will employ stooges to be the first buyer to entice victims to imitate his enthusiasm, beggars seed their bows with a few coins to give the impression others have given them, and television programs use "canned laughter" to coach viewers at home to laugh along (even when they are alone). Even social media is an attempt to manipulate people by means of social compliances - sites post a few fake reviews to encourage others to "join" in writing testimonials.

Peer pressure is another form of alliance building - giving someone the impression that everyone else in a group they wish to belong to (or remain part of) endorses an idea so that they will go along. This is just as common on executive committees as it is on elementary school playgrounds. Unions are presented as a method of alliance - where individual employees lack the self-confidence to approach their employers with a grievance, they gang together. Democratic government itself is a form of alliance building, as "majority rule" is seldom an actual majority, but is meant to make people compliant by giving that impression.

Peer pressure is powerful because people are social creatures: they wish to belong to a group and remain a part of it, and when it is implied that agreement to a given idea is a requisite of being welcomed by that group (or that disagreement will result in being anathemized or punished), people step rather quickly in line. Even in individualistic cultures where integrity is extolled, there are many instances in which peer pressure is applied, and effectively.

One danger with using peer pressure is that people may question whether the person attempting to influence them is really representing the group, or is simply pushing a personal agenda and claiming the crowd is on their side. When this is discovered, the person is discredited and risks being anathemized himself.

Another limitation is that peer pressure is used to gain compliance, not collaboration. A person acquiesces to the will of the majority out of fear, and is not thinking or actively contributing. When pressured to speak or act, they say and do what they believe will be acceptable to the group - even when they believe otherwise, and even when they know it is wrong or ineffective. This is called "Group think," which is what makes many committees ineffective - because effectiveness is not their goal and is sacrificed for social acceptance.

Conditions under which peer pressure can be effective:

• When there are norms, customs, traditions, or values of a group that are well known to all and are supportive of the proposal
• When those you are attempting to influence are particularly weak, have little integrity, or are desperate to belong within the group
• When individuals who are influential within the community can be counted on to lend their support
• When there is no logical basis for the demands you are making
• When you need obedience and compliance, not collaboration or participation

Then, some tips to use peer pressure:

• Test your idea with a few people before attempting to use it on a large group to gauge the degree to which they will accept the idea
• If you are not established as an influential member of the group, attempt to enlist the support of someone who is more respected.
• Consider the degree to which people in the group have been motivated by peer pressure in the past
• Consider which people might not be supportive or might actively oppose your proposal and find ways to discredit or anathemize them
• Consider a grass-roots approach, seeding the idea furtively so that it will appear to have come from the group in general rather than a particular person
• Consider using a team, task force, or committee as a way to seed an idea. An idea that is endorsed by a committee is more influential than one proposed by a single person.
• Actively pursue membership and visibility within groups - it's easier to leverage the prestige you have gained in advance than to attempt to gain it the moment it is needed.