How to Change Your Results by Changing Your Language
Which magazine do you think men are more likely to buy:
- a men’s health magazine with the cover, “Lose Your Gut Fast” or
- a similar magazine with the cover, “Get Six Pack Abs”?
One study showed that over 80% of men chose the first cover – “Lose Your Gut Fast.” Why?
People are more interested in avoiding (or reducing) pain than they are in increasing pleasure.
The Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, once said that three requirements must be present for an individual to change:
- The individual must be dissatisfied with the current state of affairs.
- They must see a better state.
- They must believe that they can reach that better state.
That last point is critical as it relates to the “gut” issue. When someone is 20 pounds overweight, as many Americans are, six pack abs may be desirable but seem inconceivable. I sometimes joke that I would be happy with a “two-pack.” Only when your gut is gone will the idea of six pack abs seem like a possibility.
Tversky and Kahneman demonstrated how people change their perceptions when the same problem is stated in different ways. The classic example is the “Asian disease” problem (1981) where a group of individuals were asked the following question:
Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed.
- Program A, which will save 200 people
- Program B, where there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no one will be saved
Which of the two programs would you choose?
Tversky and Kahneman found that 72% of those asked chose the “risk averse” position – Program A. The prospect of saving 200 lives with certainty was more promising than the probability of a one-in-three chance of saving 600 lives.
A second group of respondents were given the same story of the Asian disease problem, but were provided with different options.
- Program C, where 400 people will die.
- Program D, where there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that all 600 people will die.
Which of the two programs would you choose?
A whopping 78% of respondents in the second problem chose the “risk taking” position – Program D. The certain death of 400 people is less acceptable than the two-in-three chance that 600 people will die.
Of course, options A and options C are identical, as are options B and options D. Yet the different phrasing stimulated completely different responses.
This study again shows that people will take greater risks to minimize (or reduce) their pain, yet they will play it safe when the option is to increase their pleasure.
Barry Schwartz provides some other excellent examples in his Scientific American Mind magazine article (August/September). One example he sites: “Appeals to women to do breast self-exams that emphasize the benefits of early cancer detection (gains) are less effective than those that emphasize the costs of late detection (losses).”
In my article, “How to Tell If Your Intuition Is Good,” I discuss how we get attached to what we have. When taking a test, we remember (painfully) situations where we had an answer correct, changed it, and therefore got it wrong. Surprisingly, we rarely notice the reverse. We are more aware of our losses than our gains.
Many years back I did work for a client. Although I would have been happy to do it for $9,000 (not actual figures) they agreed to pay me $10,000 for my efforts. Unfortunately, due to shoddy work by a subcontractor, I volunteered to refund $1,000 (out of my own pocket) to the client, netting me $9,000. Interestingly, I would have been happy getting paid $9,000 for the job, yet getting $10,000 and losing $1,000 still irks me to this day.
The loss of $1,000 hurts worse than a gain of $1,000 feels good.
When you are trying to get someone to change (or buy your product/service/ideas), do you focus on their gained pleasure or eliminated pain? From my experience, the latter is much more effective.
What are your examples of where you changed your language and got different results?
If you found this article useful or interesting, please press the "Like" button and post a Facebook comment below.
How to Get More Done…By Being Lazy
Back in 1985, I worked for Unisys (then Burroughs) as part of an engineering co-op program while in college. This gave me hands-on experience working in the production control department for this large computer manufacturer. As I was leaving the company, the department head called me the laziest person he ever met. He meant it as a compliment. Let me explain.
When I started this job I worked 50 hours a week. My direct supervisor worked 60 hours a week. Life was good, until my supervisor was laid off and I inherited all of her work. Faced with having to work 110 hours a week, I decided to take a hard look at what we were doing.
Over the course of a weekend, I analyzed all of the activities I now needed to perform. I hoped to get my work from 110 hours to 50 hours (or less). Here’s what I found:
- Only 20% of my work was high value add “knowledge work.” These were the items I still needed to perform.
- Many activities we performed were non-value add. We had done them in the past, but they were no longer necessary, so I stopped doing them altogether.
- Several activities were really the responsibility of another department or individual. Therefore, I worked to get these activities assigned to the correct parties. Not only did this reduce my workload, but it also reduced the overall time required by the company as a whole.
- A large number of “transactional” activities were done manually and were candidates for automation (we used punch cards back then). None of these activities were very complicated, so I was able to write some simple programs in a matter of hours.
After only two days of analysis and work, I managed to get my workload from 110 hours to 20 hours. Given that I had free time on my hands, I looked for other activities in the company that could be made more productive.
I discovered a large computer program that was run once a week. It helped balance workloads across the entire company (don’t worry about the details). The software was exceptionally intricate and the data requirements were massive. It often took days to input the data. Due to the complexity of the program, it had to be run overnight. I analyzed the overall process and quickly developed a “rough cut” version of the software that took only minutes to input data and seconds to run. After using my program for a year, they found that its results were within 5% accuracy of the larger program that took over 100 times the effort to run.
Most people do whatever it takes to get the job done. I was “too lazy” to do it the traditional way. I don’t mind working hard, but I don’t want to work any harder than I need to. If I can get everything done in 20 hours rather than 110 hours, I can then choose how I spend my free time. I can spend my time being creative and develop new ideas, I can perform high value work, or I can take a break and relax. It’s my choice. And it is your choice too.
- What work do you do that is non-value add? Stop doing it!
- What work do you do that others can/should do? Delegate or outsource these activities. Get a “virtual assistant” to do your routine activities. Partner with someone who might be better skilled to do this activity.
- What work can be automated? Buy off the shelf software to help speed things up. Or use eLance.com to find someone who can build you a custom computer program.
Focus your energies on the items that are truly value add AND differentiate you from the competition. Eliminate, automate, or delegate the rest.
What other strategies have you used to get more done with less effort?
P.S. If the concept of getting more done with less effort appeals to you, be sure to read my article on “compass-driven strategic planning”
P.P.S. The picture to the right is the image on the cover of the Russian translation of Goal-Free Living. Looks more like “goal-less living” to me.
If you found this article useful or interesting, please press the "Like" button and post a Facebook comment below.
How to Perform at Optimal Levels
In the early 1900s, Robert Yerkes and J. D. Dodson developed the aptly named Yerkes-Dodson Law. The premise is that performance increases relative to motivation (they call it “arousal”) only to a point, after which performance drops. It is typically drawn as an inverted U-shaped curve.
You will notice that I superimposed three “goal” concepts on this graph to give you a sense of how they (roughly) relate.
If you are goal-less, you have no sense of direction and no motivation. Therefore, your performance is low. This is not surprising.
As your motivation increases, your performance increases. Being goal-free – having a sense of direction and purpose, without specific deadlines and limitations – can increase performance…to a point.
Then, as you become goal-driven, performance paradoxically decreases. Goals increase stress and focus you on the future rather than the present.
This phenomenon has been documented in numerous places throughout this blog. Race-car pit crews who increase performance when they are not worried about the stop watch. Students who perform better on exams when they are not as focused on grades. Sales people who sell more when they are not driven by sales targets.
Yerkes and Dodson suggest that different types of tasks require different levels of arousal (to use their word). To improve concentration, intellectually challenging tasks require lower levels of arousal for optimal performance while physically demanding tasks require higher levels. This may explains why professional athletes tend to be more goal-driven. However, even then, goals can limit performance. Listen to my interview with Dr. Doug Gardner, former sports psychology consultant to the Boston Red Sox.
Goal-Free Living is NOT about eliminating your goals. You can have goals and still perform at optimal levels. They key is to have the RIGHT goals (ones that “pull” you forward and don’t create stress) and be PRESENT to what you are doing (being detached from the desired outcomes).
Do you have examples of where you performed at optimal levels by freeing yourself from the stranglehold of rigid goals?
If you found this article useful or interesting, please press the "Like" button and post a Facebook comment below.
Never Trust an Expert
A couple of nights ago, I gave a presentation to a group of eager individuals who are either launching or advancing their speaking careers. During our 90 minute discussion, I gave dozens of tips and techniques for growing their business.
At the end of the evening, one attendee asked, “What is the MOST important tip?” I thought about this for a minute and replied, “I don’t know.”
Although this answer may seem like a cop out, it is in fact the truth. No one REALLY knows what made them successful. More importantly, they have no idea how others can replicate their success. They may be able to look at a series of events that led to a particular outcome. But most likely the “most important tip” is something completely different than what is seen on the surface.
Last year I attended a “book marketing” conference led by a well known author who has sold millions (and millions) of books. His promise was to provide steps and tools that made him successful so that others can also reap the rewards. Thousands of people have tried his formula over the years and as far as I can tell, none have come even close to his level of success. Those that achieved some level of success did so by riding on the coat-tails of this author, leveraging his name and network.
I am not implying that these experts are misleading or malicious. Not at all. The issue lies in our inability to find the correct correlations between cause and effect. Too many hidden factors play a major role – ones that we might never consider or notice. Most experts use anecdotal evidence to support their conclusions. “It worked for me and a few of my buddies, so it should work for you.” This is faulty reasoning. Maybe the expert’s “10 Steps to Financial Wealth” were not the true causes of their success.
There are many, harder to measure factors that often play a substantial role. Your attitude plays a larger part than you might think. Your Rolodex of contacts can be a huge part of the equation. Being in the right place at the right time has launched many businesses, including Microsoft. Or sometimes plain old dumb luck is the real cause. Fortunately, in the case of luck, people can create their own luck. Studies show that those who are less goal-oriented are luckier than “goalaholics” because they are open to possibilities outside of their narrow goal-focus.
So the next time someone makes a suggestion – or someone tries to sell you their 5 steps to success – be skeptical. Although it may be great advice, it may also be (unintentionally) misinformed counsel. They may not know the REAL cause of their success. Then again, this blog entry is my advice to you – so it too should be taken with a grain of salt.
P.S. Notice this entry is entitled, “Never TRUST an Expert” and not ‘Never LISTEN to an Expert.”
If you found this article useful or interesting, please press the "Like" button and post a Facebook comment below.
How To Always Be On Time
Right now I am sitting in the Las Vegas airport. With an hour to kill, I decided to write this blog entry with the harmonious sound of slot machines ringing in my ears.
I know so many road warriors who pride themselves in being able to get to the gate just as the doors are closing. Not me. I appreciate having extra time at the airport to relax and work before my flight. In fact, I tend to get to most places early. And there is a good reason.
My background is process design where there is a concept called “the theory of constraints.” The general idea is that “success” is limited by at least one constraining process (i.e., a bottleneck). In the business world, this means that if you want to make more money, the best way to do that is to increase the throughput at the bottleneck so that overall throughput is increased. You can think of this as strengthening the “weakest link in the chain.”
I use the theory of constraints in my personal life. With nearly 1 million miles of flying under my belt, I have never missed a flight. How is this possible? Because I allow plenty of time to get to the airport. I live a mere 15 minutes from Logan International in Boston, yet I typically leave for the airport two hours before a flight. Why?
We are all at the mercy of various bottlenecks: traffic on the way to the airport and long lines at the check in counter, baggage drop-off, and security. Any one of these could prevent me from getting to my plane on time…and I can’t predict when it will happen.
Therefore, instead of sitting in my office working until the last minute and then scrambling to get to the plane on time, I get to the airport early and work there. My philosophy is to put as many of the potential bottlenecks behind me before I settle down. When I get to the airport, I always check in first and drop off my luggage (I know I can print my boarding card from my computer before going to the airport, but I find this saves me very little time as I still need to check my luggage). Although I could then sit down at Dunkin’ Donuts and relax, I still have another bottleneck – security – ahead of me. Therefore, if possible, I go through security before getting my bagel and diet Coke. Besides, we can’t bring liquids through security anymore.
With technology these days, I can be as productive at the airport as I would be in my own office. I have a BlackBerry which delivers my email. I use my BlackBerry as a modem to connect my computer to the internet. The airport is an effective remote office. And doing it this way allows me to be totally stress free. I “put bottlenecks behind me” nearly every day.
If I am heading to a meeting, but haven’t eaten, I may drive through the known traffic spots before getting some food. I always leave plenty of extra time. The worst that happens is I arrive at my destination ahead of schedule. And since I assume that I will be early, I plan activities (work or pleasure) for me to do during this spare time. The good news is, I never have to have a contingency plan for if I am late.
It costs $2 to ride the T (Boston’s subway/train system), and you must have a ticket to go through the turnstile. When finishing one trip, I always purchase tickets for my next trips. This way I do not need to buy tickets when I am in a hurry to catch a train. There is nothing worse than shoving dollars into a ticket machine (and having the machine spit out your crumpled bills) when you hear the train pulling into the station. I know if I miss a train, I will have to wait at least another 15 minutes.
With potential bottlenecks behind you, you save yourself time and frustration. You will almost always be on time. And you can still be highly productive when you arrive at your destination early. OK, you won’t get that wonderful adrenaline rush this way. But in the long run, this approach keeps my blood pressure in check. Besides, numerous studies show that people who are not under severe time constraints operate at higher levels of performance. Goal-Free Living is stress-free living which is highly-effective living.
800 CEO READ
Indiebound
