Book Reviews
|
|||
|
Go to Executive Times
Archives |
|||
|
The
Five Paths to Persuasion: Identifying and Influencing the Five Styles of
Today’s Decision Makers by Robert B. Bruce Rating: •••• (Highly Recommended) |
|
||
|
Click on
title or picture to buy from amazon.com |
|
||
|
|
|||
|
Dialogue Robert Bruce’s new book, The Five
Paths to Persuasion, has several components that usually combine to
produce a fine business book: data, examples, synthesis and practical
application. Data formed through questionnaires to executives provide the
foundation for synthesizing the types of executive decision makers into five
different styles. Making the same presentation to each of the five different
styles will result in failure in four out of five cases. Determining the style
of an executive will allow any dialogue and presentation to proceed in a way
that is more likely to generate success. Here’s an excerpt From the
beginning of Chapter 6, “Persuading the Thinker Decision Maker,” pp. 62-72: TELL YOUR
STORY CHRONOLOGICALLY Thinkers can be swayed with logical
arguments that appeal directly to their intelligence, and they much prefer
presentations that are chronological. Thus, it is crucial that you tell your
story from start to finish—with all the intermediate steps intact. Thinkers
want to know exactly how you got from A to Z so that if they disagree with
your reasoning from step F to G, they can question you on that. If you can’t
defend the reasoning behind that step, you’ll need to make the necessary
revisions and logically follow those changes throughout the rest of your
argument. For Thinkers, a flaw in any step raises doubts about the entire
process and its conclusions. Therefore, to be comfortable about any decision,
Thinkers need to verify for themselves that all steps are error free.
Consequently, never start in the middle or the end of your story. Or, as the
legal saying goes, never assume facts not in evidence. Doing so is a recipe
for sure disaster. A few years ago, we unwittingly played
a role in such a debacle with VeriTabs, a
billion-dollar financial information company headquartered in To answer that, we conducted a
large-scale survey of VeriTabs’s customers,
developing extensive profiles of them, and found that the company’s brand
wasn’t going to translate easily to a Web spin-off. But that didn’t necessarily
mean that such a maneuver would fail, just that it would require a
considerable investment, particularly in marketing and advertising, to
establish the company’s brand with an on-line spin-off. Ralph Bedosian, a managing partner at the ad agency that retained
us to conduct the brand survey, was in charge of developing the marketing
campaign. When that work was completed, we would jointly present our results
to VeriTabs’s top brass. Before the big
meeting, we talked with Bedosian about the best
approach for the presentation. We suggested that we commence with a
discussion of the survey results, after which he could then unveil the new
marketing campaign. But Bedosian wanted the order reversed: He would lead with
the marketing campaign and then present our research results to explain the
reasoning behind the campaign. His strategy was to get the VeriTabs execs so excited about the catchy marketing
campaign that their enthusiasm would overshadow the discussion of why,
because of what our survey results revealed, they would need to spend more
money than they had originally anticipated. We disagreed with Bedosian, but because his agency (and not VeriTabs) had hired us, we had to follow his lead.
Unfortunately for him, Arthur Rickman, the VeriTabs
CEO, is a classic Thinker. The meeting was
held in the VeriTabs boardroom at the company’s
headquarters building in Throughout the
presentation, Rickman just sat there, trying to absorb everything. At one
point, he flipped through a two-page handout that the ad agency had given
him, but the skimpy document was just a very high-level summary with no
details. Essentially, it showed no more than what the storyboards were going
to portray. As Rickrnan looked back and forth
between the handout and the story-boards, trying to find information that
wasn’t there, his frustration grew. He didn’t even understand enough to ask
any questions, so he sat there silently. In Thinkers, silence is a bad sign:
It shows that they don’t have the necessary background information to ask
questions. Otherwise, they would jump right in with an intense series of
queries about this particular option or that piece of data or that step in a
process. By the time Bedosian
and his colleagues had gotten to the fifth storyboard, Rickman had had
enough. “Hold on,” he said. “I’m lost. Where are we in the process? I’m not
sure where we are in trying to figure out what we’re going to do.” Bedosian then tried to explain that his agency had
followed the progression of VeriTabs products to
see how the new product line would fit in. “Wait a minute,” said Rickrnan. “You guys are already talking about
slogans and product launches when I don’t even know if I want to do this yet.
I’m still trying to figure that out. I would love to move forward with this
but only if it makes sense for our company to do so. And I don’t know whether
we want to do this or not. I’m looking for some data, something to show me
that this is the type of thing that we should be doing.” At this point, Rickman was out of his
chair, pacing the room. In his fifties, Rickman is not a large man, but when
he is agitated, his voice can boom, and this was one of those occasions. He
walked over to the storyboards, flipped through them, picked them up, and
tossed them over to a nearby credenza. “I don’t need to see any of this stuff
right now,” he said. “We’re way ahead of ourselves. I don’t even know if I want
to go into this business yet. I need to see some data.” Bedosian then turned to us, trying to salvage
the situation, and told Rickman that we had some pertinent market research to
present about the VeriTabs brand. But it was too
late for that. “I want to see it,” said Rickman, “but now I’m not in the
right frame of mind. So here’s what I want you to do: I want you to regroup
and figure out what you’re doing on this project. And then come back to
re-present the information to me.” With that, Rickman left the room. Everyone was nonplussed. We were barely
ten or fifteen minutes into the meeting, which had been scheduled for an
hour, and Rickman had walked out. We had never seen a CEO take someone to
task like that. People in the room couldn’t help feeling sorry for Bedosian. He had made a serious miscalculation about the
structure of his presentation, and he paid the price. When we gathered our
belongings and headed out the room, his one remark was, “Well, that was
interesting.” Two weeks later we flew back to In the end, Rickman scuttled his plans
for launching VeriTabs.com. We realize that even if our initial meeting with
him had gone without a hitch, he still might have made the decision he did
because our data showed that the spin-off would have required a substantial
investment. But Bedosian certainly didn’t help his
chances because his presentation was geared more for a Charismatic than a
Thinker. Even if Rickman had been a Charismatic, Bedosian
still should have described the problem in greater detail (that is, explained
why VeriTabs would have difficulty establishing its
brand on-line) before launching into the marketing slogans. Of course,
hindsight is twenty-twenty, but the ideal presentation for Rickman would
have first defined the problem thoroughly, listed the different options,
discussed the pros and cons of each of those options, explained how risks
would be minimized, and then arrived at the optimum solution. An unfortunate
epilogue to this story is that the ad agency lost the VeriTabs
account—more than a million dollars of business—and Bedosian
was fired a few months later. INVOLVE THE
THINKER IN YOUR PROCESS The reason Thinkers
prefer a chronological presentation is that it enables them to easily
follow someone else’s logic. This in turn allows them to ask questions along
the way to thoroughly understand that person’s decision-making process. Such
a presentation should include the following steps: (1) define the problem,
(2) describe and evaluate the different options, (3) explain why a particular
option is best, (4) assess the value of that option, and (5) evaluate the
potential problems with that option. In any meeting with a Thinker, you
should not only plan a systematic presentation but also be prepared to
answer numerous queries throughout the discussion. An important thing to remember
is that the battery of questions is not personal, even though it might seem
like an intense interrogation. Instead, it is simply the Thinker’s attempt to
gain an in-depth understanding of your methodology. Remember that Thinkers
usually need to fully comprehend something before they will truly trust it.
In fact, they are often more interested in the process that was used to
obtain an answer than they are in the answer itself. So you need to fully
explain your methodology and flow of logic and be prepared for Thinkers to
challenge you whenever something is unclear. During a meeting, they may even
take contradictory points of view, but don’t be confused when that happens.
They are merely trying to understand a situation from all perspectives.
Playing devil’s advocate helps Thinkers to make sure that they have left no
stone unturned, so don’t let that approach throw you off your game and don’t
take it personally. Thinkers are most persuaded by logical
arguments that incorporate an explanation of best practices and procedures,
information and methods endorsed by experts, clever and unique approaches,
extensive data analysis, and a discussion of future results. Furthermore, to
hold a Thinker’s attention, consider using the following buzzwords: quality,
academic, think, numbers, makes sense, intelligent, plan, expert,
competition, proof, hear, tell, talk, future, risk free. Perhaps the best overall strategy is to
focus on open communications. The ideal way to accomplish that is by
involving Thinkers as much as possible in the process that you are using to
arrive at a solution. This will engage them, and a side benefit is that they
will begin to take ownership of your process, which will only help you in the
long run in getting their ultimate buy-in. So don’t hesitate to openly
discuss your worries and concerns about the shortcomings of your proposal,
and continually ask the Thinker for suggestions. Specifically, be candid
about where your data are inconclusive or conflicting, where you’ve made
assumptions (especially ones that you’re unsure of), where your arguments are
based on gut feelings, and so on. Thinkers won’t hold that information
against you; in fact, it’s likely to increase your credibility with them. This is why we recommend that the
optimum approach for dealing with Thinkers is to schedule two presentations,
perhaps a week apart. In the first meeting, show your process and the
progress you’ve made in solving a problem. Get a clear understanding of any
additional options or other information that the Thinker deems important. The
most crucial thing to remember is that, as much as possible, you want to
obtain the Thinker’s input about your process. In the second meeting,
highlight any revisions you’ve made to your process since the earlier presentation
and then follow those changes through to their logical conclusions to make
your recommendations. The two-meeting approach might seem inefficient, but it
helps Thinkers to become familiar and comfortable with your process. To understand why, consider Kevin
McLaughlin, who is the deputy director of a state agency with a $40-million
budget. In his mid-fifties, McLaughlin is intelligent and well read. He is
also a classic Thinker: thorough and methodical. One thing his staff has
learned is that, particularly for any major decision, they need to keep him
informed of the process they are using to arrive at a solution. “I would
always try to send Kevin a report before a meeting, so that he’d have the
chance to review it. And then during the meeting I could talk him through the
details,” recalls Eric Vieau, who was the chief
financial officer of the agency. The bigger the decision, says Vieau, the more important it was to involve McLaughlin in
the different steps along the way. Vieau recalls such a situation in the
mid-1990s when he proposed that the agency upgrade its computer systems. At
the time, only a quarter of the staff had desktop personal computers, and
those were a hodgepodge of incompatible hardware and software. Worse, the PCs
weren’t networked, which aggravated the inefficiencies. McLaughlin was all in
favor of investing in standardized and networked PCs, and he asked Vieau to investigate how to accomplish that. One of the issues was whether to buy or
lease the PCs. Another matter was the type of arrangement for the maintenance
and servicing of the equipment. Vieau explored
those and other issues and prepared a report for McLaughlin with details of
the different alternatives. Regarding the buy-or-lease decision,
for instance, the report showed that although buying PCs would be cheaper,
that option had various hidden costs. If the agency bought the equipment, it
would have to do so in piecemeal fashion, perhaps purchasing fifteen PCs the
first year, fifteen the next year, and so on. During this transition time,
the new PCs wouldn’t be compatible with the older, existing machines, thus
aggravating the inefficiencies. By leasing the equipment instead, the agency
could install everything at once, and everyone would be using the same
software. McLaughlin reviewed the report and
asked Vieau to investigate various other issues:
How would the costs fit into our budget? What impact might it have on other
areas of the budget? Who would get what kind of PC? How would we train
everyone, particularly those who weren’t familiar with e-mail, word
processors, Web browsers, and other software? What would be the best timing
for the implementation? What brands should we go with? Sometimes the answer to one of those
questions would lead to another issue that would then need to be resolved. To
determine who would get what kind of PC, for instance, Vieau
had to come up with a position-by-position analysis to ensure that staff
members didn’t feel that any favoritism was involved. All administrative
assistants, for example, would get a certain type of CPU and monitor. Those
and other issues were worked through in numerous back-and-forth exchanges,
until Vieau had provided McLaughlin with all the
information he needed. After that, McLaughlin gave the project the green
light. McLaughlin’s other managers have also
adapted to his style of decision making. Mary Flood, the agency’s director
of finance and administration, recalls that she learned to accept the fact
that decisions wouldn’t usually be made in a single meeting. “Kevin would
always ask, ‘Have you looked at that?’ or ‘Have you considered this?’ “she says of her boss. “His points were usually very good
ones—you’d frequently say to yourself, ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’—but then
you’d leave the meeting without a decision.” For smaller matters, Flood learned to
copy McLaughlin on c-mails and memos to inform him on how she was handling
them and to give him the opportunity to add his input. That way he wouldn’t
be blind-sided by any decision. So, for example, if Flood were handling a
personnel problem with one of her staff, she would copy him on certain
correspondence she might be having with someone from human resources so that
McLaughlin would know what steps she was taking to address the problem.
Usually he wouldn’t comment, but occasionally he would have a suggestion. BE EXHAUSTIVE BUT
PATIENT Thinkers like McLaughlin thrive on
information. They have a strong need for data, facts, and figures, and this
makes it difficult to persuade them. One effective tactic is to deliver that
information in huge chunks interspersed with enough time for them to make
sense of the material. You can almost never provide Thinkers with too much
information. Even when you think you have, they will ask you for something
that you hadn’t even thought of. So expect that even when you’re confident
that you’ve exhausted all avenues, they will find other pathways to explore. In Flood’s meetings with McLaughlin, he
would frequently ask her for some piece of information that she hadn’t
anticipated. When she first started working for him, she would leave those
meetings thinking, “Why didn’t I cover that base myself?” But as their
working relationship evolved, she realized something important. Thinkers like
McLaughlin don’t necessarily expect you to have all your ducks in a row when
you make a proposal. They believe that part of their job is to help their
staffers clarify and fine-tune their thinking processes. And although
Thinkers don’t expect you to have all the answers at the outset, they do
expect you to eventually locate and properly position your ducks after
they’ve given you the necessary guidance. If Thinkers want information that is
proprietary or is otherwise difficult for you to provide, the best solution
is to point them toward where they might get that information for themselves.
Thinkers don’t expect you to breach your or anyone else’s code of ethics or
privacy, but they do appreciate any guidance they can get. After Thinkers have all the data they
need, you should give them ample time and space to come to their own
conclusions. Remember that Thinkers are less innovative-driven than they are
control-driven, so it’s important to give them some ownership of the
decision-making process. After you’ve provided all the information they need,
don’t crowd them or you’ll very likely annoy and irritate, rather than help. Sometimes the wait can he unsettling.
You might have struggled to painstakingly address every detail, dotting each i and crossing every t. After all
that, you might feel that a decision should be imminent. But the truth is
that Thinkers still need ample time to process information on their own
terms. And if they say they’ll make a decision at the end of the week, then
they will make a decision at that time. In other words, you can take them at
face value. That point brings to mind an
interesting dealing we had with James Gonon, the
president and COO of Optektrix, a leading supplier
of semiconductor manufacturing equipment. We’ve known Gonon
for years. He’s a Thinker: process-oriented and very much a numbers person.
We had worked with him in the past, but we hadn’t talked to him in about a
year. So we thought long and hard about how we might get our feet through his
door again. At the time, we were repositioning our firm to specialize in customer-value
research, and we had a strong feeling that our methodology and hard data
would appeal to Gonon. But we waited until we had
something tangible that would demonstrate exactly what we were capable of
doing. In late 2001, we finished two major
studies: one that covered the personal computer industry (detailing who
bought PCs and why) and the other on how executives make decisions (that
research was the basis of this book, Paths to Persuasion). We then
knew we had something very powerful for Gonon to
see. We didn’t know what his exact needs were, and we didn’t know which of
the two studies might catch his eye. But we were hoping that our recent
research might somehow be related to a project he had in mind, and at the
very least we could show him our methodology, which we thought would interest
him. So we called Gonon and scheduled thirty
minutes of his time. At the meeting, we presented him with
the full reports of both studies; each document was more than fifty pages
long. We also brought copies for his key people. Gonon
was particularly interested in our research on decision making, especially
our breakdown of the five executive styles. As he looked through that data,
he said, “This is perfect timing because we have an executive call program
that we want to put together for our sales professionals. Maybe you can help
us out with that.” We were excited because we knew that
executive call programs are extensive projects. They typically consist of
two-to-three-year plans for sales professionals to strategize how best to
cultivate relationships with key executives at major accounts. Gonon was considering our research as a tool that would
enable his sales staff to make more effective presentations to Optektrix’s clients. Our timing was indeed fortuitous in
that we might be able to be a part of the company’s executive call program
from the ground level. At the conclusion of our meeting with Gonon, he asked us to call him on his cell phone on
February 27 at 6:30 in the morning. He was going to be touring a plant that
day (thus the early time) and would then have a decision whether Optektrix would want to use us in the company’s executive
call program. Three weeks later, on February 27, we
called Gonon promptly at 6:30 A.M. “Thanks for
calling me,” he said. “I had a meeting about this yesterday, and we do want
to go ahead. The person you need to talk with is John Switzler,
so please give him a call. He’s in Certainly, we were fortunate that we
had caught Gonon at the perfect time, right when
he was starting the planning for his executive call program. But we had bided
our time until we had the kind of data that would appeal to him and so were
ready when the opportunity presented itself. And, just as important, we were
careful not to blow that opportunity. During the three-week interlude between
our initial meeting with Gonon and the subsequent
phone call, he probably scrutinized our data and methodology and processed
all that information. When everything passed muster, he had a meeting with
other Optektrix executives to obtain their buy-in
for including us in the company’s executive call program. The important point is this: During the
three-week period, we had zero contact with Gonon.
We took him at face value: If he said to phone him on a particular day, there
was no reason to have any contact with him before that unless he requested
it. If he had trouble understanding our research methodology, for instance,
he might ask us for additional details, and we would obviously respond
promptly to that request. But we didn’t hear anything from him during those
three weeks, so we assumed that everything was in order. In contrast, if Gonon had been a Charismatic, we might have called or
written him just to stay in contact and to ensure that he hadn’t dropped the
ball. Remember that Thinkers like to process
information by themselves, and during that time you need to back off;
otherwise, you’re likely to annoy rather than help. Once Thinkers have all
the information they need, they don’t require additional assistance. What
they prefer is that you give them the space they need to do their thorough
analysis. A primary caution with Thinkers is that
they will never forget a bad experience, so you must be absolutely positive
that any recommendation you make is truly the best option. Of course, you
should do this for any of the five types of decision makers, but particularly
so with Thinkers. And, anyway, Thinkers will eventually figure out for themselves
whether something was truly the best alternative. My
inclination in reading The Five
Paths to Persuasion was to balk at this approach to categorization. After
a few chapters, my hesitation diminished, and by the end of the book, I
thought there were valuable messages delivered that are useful for any reader
interested in being more effective in persuading decision makers. Steve
Hopkins, May 25, 2004 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
ã 2004 Hopkins and Company, LLC The recommendation rating for
this book appeared in the June 2004
issue of Executive Times URL for this review: http://www.hopkinsandcompany.com/Books/The
Five Paths to Persuasion.htm For Reprint Permission,
Contact: Hopkins & Company, LLC • E-mail: books@hopkinsandcompany.com |
|||
