When seeking influence tools that have an impact onprofound and persistent problems, no resource ismore powerful and accessible than the persuasion of the people who make up our social n
Trang 1—Emile Henry Gauvreau
Design Rewards and Demand Accountability
Change the Environment
Harness Peer Pressure
Find Strength
in Numbers
Make the Undesirable Desirable
Surpass Your Limits
Trang 2When seeking influence tools that have an impact on
profound and persistent problems, no resource ismore powerful and accessible than the persuasion
of the people who make up our social networks The ridiculeand praise, acceptance and rejection, approval and disapproval
of our fellow beings can do more to assist or destroy our changeefforts than almost any other source Smart influencers appre-ciate the amazing power humans hold over one another, andinstead of denying it, lamenting it, or attacking it, influencersembrace and enlist it
THE POWER
In 1961, when psychologist Stanley Milgram set out to find U.S.citizens similar in disposition to what society believed were thecrazy misfits, blind fundamentalists, and psychological wreckswho had marched Jews, Poles, and Romanies into the gas cham-bers at Auschwitz, the world was surprised by what he discovered
In fact, Dr Milgram’s findings were so disturbing that he fellunder attack from every corner Nobody wanted to believe thedata
Mystified by what had happened in Hitler’s Germany, Dr
Milgram was interested in what type of person could be
com-pelled to annihilate his or her innocent friends and neighbors.Naturally, blind fundamentalists who followed unspeakableorders all in the name of political zealotry would be hard tolocate in the suburbs of Connecticut Nevertheless, Milgramwas determined to track down a few of them and put themunder his microscope
Of course, as a respectable researcher, Milgram couldn’tcreate circumstances under which his neighbors actually killedeach other But maybe he could trick subjects into thinkingthey were killing someone else, when in truth their victimswould remain unharmed To create these odd circumstances,
Dr Milgram ran an ad in the New Haven newspaper asking
Trang 3people to take part in an experiment that lasted one hour andfor which they would be paid $4.50 Interested persons reported
to the basement of Linsly-Chittenden Hall on the campus ofYale University where they were told that their job would be totake part in a study that examined the impact of negative rein-forcement on learning
While waiting for their turn to earn $4.50, subjects wouldchat with another participant about the upcoming job Thisfriendly stranger was actually a confederate of Dr Milgram’swho was working as part of the research team Next, a scientist
in a lab jacket would appear and ask each of the two subjects
to reach into an urn and draw out a slip of paper to determinewho would perform which of the two jobs that were available.One would be a “teacher,” and one would be a “learner.” Inactuality, both slips said “teacher,” guaranteeing that the actualresearch subject would take the role of the teacher
The teacher would then accompany the learner and theresearcher into a small booth where the learner was invited tosit down while the researcher applied special paste to his arms
“This,” he explained, “is to ensure solid contact between yourskin and the electrodes when we administer the shocks.” At thispoint, the learner would matter-of-factly explain, “A few yearsago in the veterans’ hospital I was told I had a bit of a heartcondition Will that be a problem?” To which the researcherwould confidently say, “No While the shocks may be painful,they are not dangerous.”
After strapping the electrodes to the learner, the researcherand teacher would close the booth door and move to theadjoining room There the teacher would see a frighteningpiece of electrical machinery with which he or she woulddeliver shocks to the learner To reassure subjects that themachine was pumping out real electrons, each “teacher” would
be given a 45-volt burst from the machine as a sample of theinitial shock the learner in the other room would receive dur-ing the experiment It hurt
Trang 4The stated goal of the experiment was to measure theimpact of negative reinforcement on learning To test this,the teacher would read a list of paired words loud enough forthe learner to hear in the adjoining room The subject wouldthen read the first word in each pair, and the learner would try
to recall the second word Should the learner get the wordwrong, the subject would throw a switch that would shock thepoor learner with the heart problems With each subsequentmissed word, the teacher would raise the voltage, flip theswitch, and give the learner an even larger shock
Despite the fact that the subject thought he was increasingthe voltage with each new error, the “learner” received no elec-tric shock whatsoever Instead, with each throwing of theswitch, the researchers would play prerecorded audio that thesubject could hear through the wall With the first shock came
a grunt The second shock produced a mild protest Next,stronger protests Then screaming and shouting Then scream-ing and banging on the wall with a reminder that he had heartproblems Eventually, when the voltage levels exceeded 315volts, the subject would hear nothing but silence as he read thewords, raised the voltage, and cruelly flipped the switch
Of course, Dr Milgram knew he would have to experimentwith a lot of subjects before he’d find anyone who would keepcranking up the volts In fact, when Milgram asked a samplegroup of social psychologists to predict the results of this chill-ing study, they suggested that only 1.2 percent of the popula-tion, only a “sadistic few,” would give the maximum voltage When you watch black-and-white film clips of Milgram’sactual subjects taking part in the study, the hair stands up onthe back of your neck At first these everyday folks off the streets
of Connecticut chuckle nervously as they hear the learnergrunt in protest after being given a 45-volt shock Some showsigns of stress as they increase the voltage and the learner starts
to shout Many pause at around 135 volts and question the pose of the experiment
Trang 5pur-If at any time the subject called for a halt, he was told bythe scientist in the white lab jacket that the experiment requiredhim to continue—up to four times If the subject requested tostop a fifth time, the experiment stopped Otherwise the exper-iment came to an end only after the subject had given the max-imum 450 volts—to a learner who was no longer protesting, butwho had gone completely silent—giving the teacher the dis-tinct impression that the learner had either passed out or died Clearly the subjects who continued to send more andmore volts to their protesting, screaming, and begging cohorttook no pleasure in what they were doing It’s unnerving towatch clips as anguished subjects suggest that they should stopthe torture After offering their suggestion, they are immediatelytold that the experiment calls for them to continue
Researchers watched and recorded the subjects, takingcomfort in knowing that only a few subjects would administermuch of a shock As it turned out, “only” 65 percent of sub-jects would
That’s the finding that got Milgram in trouble He hadn’tdiscovered a tiny handful of Connecticut zealots and sociopathswho would gladly give their souls over to the totalitarian cause
He had found the vulnerable target within all of us He hadlooked for the freak and found himself—and you and me Andnobody liked it
What was going on? Why do human beings place such ahigh premium on the approval of others—often strangers?Certainly that’s what you’d ask if you were a social scientist Ifyou were a student of influence, you’d ask how this amazingsocial force might work either for or against you as you do yourbest to orchestrate change You’d want to co-opt the awesomepower of social pressure for your own purposes
Savvy people know how to tap into this enormous source
of influence in hundreds of different ways They do so by lowing one simple principle They ensure that people feelpraised, emotionally supported, and encouraged by those
Trang 6fol-around them—every time they enact vital behaviors Similarly,they take steps to ensure that people feel discouraged or evensocially sanctioned when choosing unhealthy behaviors The actual methods that influence masters use to exploitthe enormous power of “the fellow in the lab jacket” deserve
a much closer look Whole literatures are built upon the dation of social influence Topics ranging from leadership tointerpersonal influence to group dynamics draw from thissame source of social power
foun-This being the case, we take care to narrow our search byfirst examining how social support can be harnessed for good.Then we look at three best practices that help magnify thepower of social support First, we explore how to make use ofthat unique group of people who routinely exert more influ-ence than anyone else—the much-vaunted opinion leaders.Next, we examine how influence geniuses routinely assail not
people per se, but their shared norms We’ll see how brilliant
leaders directly attack norms that would otherwise impede vitalbehaviors Finally, we look at what it takes to create an entireculture of social support
THE POWER OF ONE
Stanley Milgram clearly demonstrated that one respected vidual can create conditions that compel ordinary citizens toact in curious, if not unhealthy, ways But he also found theopposite to be true After discovering that he could propel peo-ple to act against their own consciences, he began exploringwhich variable had the largest impact on compliance Was itthe size of the room, the look and feel of the electronicmachine, or the distance to the subject? After conducting testswith over a thousand subjects of every ilk and under every imag-inable condition, Milgram concluded that one variable morethan any other affected how people behaved: the presence ofone more person
Trang 7indi-Dr Milgram learned that if a confederate either shockedthe person all the way to 450 volts or stood up to the authorityfigure, it dramatically affected how the research subjects acted.
He could increase the already stunning 65 percent of wayers to 90 percent if only one other person (a confederate)gave a full dose of power just before the subject had a turn atthe machine Equally important, he discovered that the num-ber who would administer the full shock dropped to a mere 10
all-the-percent if one person before him or her refused to do so Either
way, it just took one person to turn the tide of compliance
This finding paints a much brighter picture of humanityand offers us a wonderful influence tool To harness theimmense power of social support, sometimes you need to findonly one respected individual who will fly in the face of his-tory and model the new and healthier vital behaviors
Here’s how this works We (the authors) once watched thepower of stepping out against the norm at a large defense con-tracting firm At this company the CEO was trying to transform
a rather timid culture into one where individuals openly statedtheir differing opinions as a means of resolving long-standingproblems After months of lecturing, he faced a moment oftruth In a meeting of his top 200 managers, the CEO extended
an invitation “I’ve been told that I’m unapproachable,” hebegan “I am trying to work on it But to be honest, I don’t knowwhat it means entirely I’d appreciate feedback from any of youwho would be willing to help me.”
For a few seconds, the auditorium felt like a morgue As theCEO scanned the audience for any takers, he was about
to break the awkward silence and move on when a fellow bythe name of Ken raised his hand “Sure, Bill I’ve got somesuggestions.”
With that announcement, the CEO set an appointment totalk one-on-one with Ken As you might guess, from thatmoment on most of the water-cooler chatter was about the fool-ish risk Ken had just taken Pay-per-view could have made a
Trang 8fortune selling access to the private meeting between Ken andthe CEO But in the end, the entire story came out—from theCEO.
After meeting with Ken, the CEO sent out an e-mail tailing the feedback he’d gotten He made commitments to acouple of changes that he hoped would make him more ap-proachable, and he was as good as his word Equally important,the CEO sincerely thanked Ken for his candor The CEOshowed his genuine support of the behavior of being candid bynot becoming defensive and by rewarding the person who hadtaken the risk to be honest—even when it hurt—and he thenmade personal changes to demonstrate his commitment The results were far-reaching The CEO’s and Ken’s livingexamples of seeking and giving feedback emboldened theother 199 managers Within months candor among employeesincreased dramatically across the entire organization Em-ployees began to open up and successfully solve problems Although it’s true that neither Ken nor the CEO wore whitelab jackets, they did exert social influence Both were respectedindividuals, and both demonstrated how to break from traditionand speak frankly Had the CEO only given lip service to theproposed vital behavior, he would have doomed the changeeffort Had he simply used verbal persuasion, his influencewould have been equally limited Instead, the big boss encour-aged candor, embraced it, celebrated it, and rewarded the firstperson who had the guts to speak his mind
de-When a respected individual attempts a vital behavior andsucceeds, this one act alone can go further in motivatingothers to change than almost any other source of influence Buttake note, the living examples of other humans exert poweronly to the extent that the person who is modeling the vitalbehaviors is truly respected For example, when an HR man-ager at a midsized plywood mill we (the authors) consulted withtried to put teeth into a training program she was touting, shevideotaped the president of the company singing the praises of
Trang 9the new training The president ended his short, energeticspeech with, “I encourage each of you to take to heart the con-cepts taught in today’s training.”
When the HR manager showed the video clip at the ning of the first training session, participants jeered, hooted, andmocked the president It turns out that members of the audi-ence despised anything coming out of headquarters Theythought the president was a raging hypocrite, and his ringingendorsement only served to harm the training’s credibility
begin-Some individuals can exert a great deal of influence on oneanother; others can’t So how do you know who’s who?
THE POWER OF THE RIGHT ONE
We’ve seen that one person can have an enormous effect onmotivating others to enact vital behaviors We’ve also seen thatthe influence of formal leaders (like the CEO and the guy inthe white lab coat) can have a remarkable influence on thebehavior of those in their sphere of influence So if you want
to influence change, it’s essential that you engage the chain ofcommand Smart influencers spend a disproportionate amount
of time with formal leaders to ensure that the leaders are usingtheir social influence to encourage vital behaviors
But the bosses are only half of what you’ll need It turns outthat there’s a second and often overlooked group of peoplewhose social support or resistance will make or break your influ-ence efforts To find out who this group is and how to enlist it,let’s take a look at the work of Dr Everett Rogers His contri-bution to influence theory remains one of the greatest in his-tory and has important implications to how all parents, coaches,and leaders can best make use of social support
After graduating with a Ph.D in sociology and statistics, Dr.Rogers took an intriguing job with the local university exten-sion service It was his responsibility to encourage Iowa farm-ers to use new and improved strains of corn What could be
Trang 10easier? The new strains of corn Rogers was touting producedgreater yields and were dramatically more disease resistant, andtherefore, far more profitable than current strains
As Dr Rogers talked with local farmers about the terrificnew seeds he was recommending, he quickly learned that hiseducation and connection to the university didn’t impressthem He wasn’t exactly one of them Farmers dressed differ-ently; their hands were rough from physical labor; they read dif-ferent magazines and watched different TV programs Otherthan speaking the English language, they scarcely had a thing
in common with Rogers
At first, Dr Rogers figured that this difference would ally work to his advantage The reason the farmers should lis-
actu-ten to his advice was because he hadn’t done what they had
done He had made a careful study of the crops they shouldgrow He was now working for the experts in agronomy In fact,Rogers figured that when he talked, farmers would be takingnotes and thanking him for helping them increase their yields But it didn’t work that way It turns out that Rogers wasn’tjust different In the farmers’ view, he was the wrong kind of dif-ferent He was naive He was a city slicker He had never plowed
a field Sure, he said he read books, but what if he was wrong?Who would dare put their annual harvest at risk by listening to
a young fellow just out of college? None of the farmers That’swho
After being summarily rejected by his target population,Rogers grew increasingly confused and desperate What good
is it, Rogers wondered, to invent better methods—in fact, far
better methods—if no one will put them into practice? Thevery advance of civilization relies on citizens letting go of old,inefficient ways and embracing new, efficient ones And Rogersjust happened to know what those better ways were—at leastfor the farmers
What could Dr Rogers do if people didn’t respect him(which they most certainly didn’t)? The very fact that he was