When are people more likely to act:
And if they act, how passionate will they be?
More importantly, what do your words do?
Myself? I’d want them to do both …
Keep lighting the path,
Michael
PS: This is the kind of words my essay series “What the Best Leaders Say” explores. The next issue will be out in 2 days.
“You can’t be serious!”
I’m pretty sure that this thought has crossed your mind more than once in meetings when someone you considered smart supported a (seemingly) nonsensical take.
Or when someone made an insane statement that seemed to contradict everything you consider common sense.
When this happens, instead of asking what’s wrong with them, I suggest to ask “What’s going on?”. For example, that person might
→ want to be seen by someone in the meeting.
→ want to belong to a certain (sub)group.
→ feel the need to negotiate their status with someone.
Things like that are sometimes not obvious if you’re deep down in the factual argument. But opening your eyes for it can help make sense of their take.
Once you see it, you’ll recognize that more rational arguments from your side won’t change their mind, if only because their take is not about logic at all (to be fair, it could be totally subconscious).
You’ll much rather need to find words that address the actual game they’re playing.
Which might mean asking more questions (as opposed to providing more facts). Or it might mean to ignore their take and turn your attention to the person that’s influencing the “irrational” take.
How do you handle seemingly irrational behavior in meetings?
If you are a rational person, chances are you’re sometimes deeply frustrated when people just don’t get it.
I’ve certainly been in the past.
I mean, sometimes it’s so obvious …
the logic is flawless …
the data clear …
but this guy almost refuses to get it.
That can be so frustrating.
Yet, there’s no point in complaining.
As much as we would like our audiences to be fully rational in their decision making, sooner or later we will encounter one that just isn’t.
That’s when logic won’t do the job.
I mean, of course you’re free to dismiss that audience.
But if that’s not an option, the only other option is to figure out a way to somehow resonate on an emotional level. Not to dismiss the logic (after all, it’s still valid), but to open a side door that allows the conversation to take place even if you can’t agree on the logic.
This is something I’ve seen brilliant people shy away from who devalue “emotional arguments” as, well, “irrational”. But I think that’s a mistake.
An emotional side door to the argument doesn’t devalue the rational main entrance. It doesn’t make the argument any less true.
But it allows people access to your insights that would otherwise have to stay outside.
The misunderstanding here is to consider rational the opposite of emotional. It’s not.
If you craft the emotional appeal in a way that is true to the logic, then it’s actually another facet of the same thing.
Give it a try!
How do you deal with a situation where people just don’t seem to get the logic?
Some narratives just
won’t go away.
Why?
The data is clear.
Yet people believe the lie.
But why?
Because it feels right.
That’s why.
—
People aren’t good at feeling data.
That’s why it’s hard to compete on facts with a story that resonates on an emotional level.
If something feels right, we’re pretty good at coming up with good reasons for why it is right. If something just is right but feels wrong, that’s much harder.
Have you had that experience?
How did you deal with it?
So, you were a good boy. You didn’t buy ice cream while running your groceries … But of course only to find yourself crying in front of the fridge later in the evening because you so badly want some ice cream NOW!
Which is exactly how it should be. When we make decisions at a time when our habits and emotions haven’t taken over full control of our behavior, it has exactly the effect that we’re looking for. We make more rational decisions.
In the moment, it’s hard to overcome an emotion. It’s even harder when we’re on autopilot because a habit was triggered.
Outside of the moment, these decisions are much easier. When our emotions don’t make us want something so badly – right now, no delay tolerated – then we can treat a pro as a pro and a con as a con. Emotions love to interfere with our reasoning by coming up with all sorts of other reasons why, actually, it’s ok to buy some ice cream despite our intention of implementing a healthier diet, just this time, also: I mean look at what others are doing, compared to them, we’re still doing fine (we’ve already put some vegetables in our cart).
As humans, we’re exceptional at “tweaking” reasons to support our feelings. Which is not always in our best interest.
We tend to make better decisions when we don’t make them in the moment.
PS: But then again: Ice cream? Come on!
Clarity can show up in the form of a thought or in the form of a feeling.
The aha effect happens when both fall together … when your gut tells you that something feels right and your brain understands why it is right.
You’re missing out if you only look at one of those sides.
Fact: The glass is half full.
Which is the same as half empty.
The more relevant question is what conclusions do we draw from the fact?
These can be rather different depending on your take regarding half empty or half full, e.g. because they imply a different sense of urgency.
The thing is that arguing rationally based on facts can be just as frustrating as arguing emotionally when we don’t agree on the meaning of the facts. Even more so … because everyone is so deeply convinced that their take is right. After all, the facts prove them right. It really is a factual argument: “But the glass is half empty! You can’t deny that!”
Why then does the other party, based on the facts, arrive at a different conclusion? And how come they are just as convinced of their conclusion?
The problem is that facts are just facts and the argument is not about the facts. It’s about what the facts mean. It’s informed by our experiences and expectations. It’s influenced by our values and principles.
And this means, that it only masks as a rational discussion unless we agree on these things. It’s a rational discussion relative to our values and principles. Only when we agree about these will a rational argument lead to the same conclusion for all participants.
Are you clear about the values that influence the meaning of a fact to you?
In our regular Clubhouse session on leadership communication we had an interesting discussion about price. One of the participants reported that they managed to get a deal despite having the most expensive offer (by far) among 12 competitors.
Upon further dissecting the pitch it turned out that they got the deal not despite being the most expensive competitor but because of it.
The customer’s management told themselves the story that they only deserve the best. The high price communicated exactly that.
So, when it came to pitching the concepts, the decision was basically already made at the moment the customer heard the price. Everything that came after that was just there to justify why this was indeed the premium offer that they deserved.
This is an important lesson about pricing. Often, the price is seen as the result of adding up the effort of everything that went into building the offer. Yet, price is essentially a story. And so a different perspective on price is that it can also be the starting point of the story. The task of building a product is then to build a product that deserves to be sold at that price point. How does our offer need to look like so that – despite the premium price tag – it still feels like a bargain?
Get This Moment Counts in your inbox.
How exceptional leaders communicate when the message has to land
I value your privacy. No spam. Just “Great stuff, brilliantly articulated” (to use the words of longtime reader David).