but not enough.
So scientists tried highlighting the gap between attitudes and action. A research assistant stood outside the women’s locker room at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and asked students who were about to shower if they would sign a poster encouraging other people to save water. “Take shorter showers,” it read. “If I can do it, so can you!”
Support a pro-social cause? Students were more than happy to help.
Then, after signing the poster, students were asked a few brief questions about their own water use, such as “When showering, do you always turn off the water while soaping up or shampooing?” These questions highlighted that their own behavior was less than ideal. That they sometimes wasted water while showering.
Finally, students went to shower. And unbeknown to them, a second research assistant unobtrusively recorded how long they left the water on. (To make sure the students didn’t realize they were being timed, the assistant pretended to shower in another stall while timing things using a waterproof stopwatch.)
Highlighting the gap between students’ attitudes and actions drastically reduced water use. They shortened their showers by more than a minute, or more than 25 percent. And they were twice as likely to turn off the shower while shampooing or soaping up.
Reminding students that they didn’t always practice what they preached encouraged them to change their practices.
* * *
This approach works even when the dissonance isn’t as obvious.
People who deny climate change exists are unlikely to want polluted air for their kids. Employees who are wedded to old, inefficient processes are unlikely to recommend the same approach to new hires. There’s a disconnect between what people are saying or doing and what they would want or recommend for others.
Take a project that’s not working out, or a division that is consistently losing money. It really should be killed off, but some people are wedded to it. “Give it a chance,” they say. “Give it more time.” Inertia kicks in and they can’t seem to let go, even though they should.
Rather than trying to convince them to kill it, take a different tack. Shift the reference point.
If they were starting from scratch today, given what they know now, would they suggest starting the project? If a new CEO were hired, would they suggest keeping the division? If not, why should we?
Highlighting such dissonance, and bringing it to the fore, encourages people not only to see the discord but also to work to resolve it.
Start with Understanding
The final way catalysts allow for autonomy goes back, as surprising as it may seem, to the approach used by hostage negotiators like Greg Vecchi.
Over the last few decades, negotiators have relied on a simple stairway model. Whether trying to convince an international terrorist to let hostages go or to change someone’s mind about committing suicide, a basic set of steps consistently works.
The first step isn’t influence or persuasion. Like most people trying to change minds, novice negotiators want to be direct, saying, “Let the hostages go now or we’ll shoot!” Immediately jumping to the outcome they want to achieve.
Not surprisingly, tactics like this don’t work. They come across as blunt and overly aggressive, and often lead conflicts to escalate. Because starting by trying to influence someone makes it all about you. It’s not about other people, and their wants and motivations; it’s about you and what you want.
Before people will change, they have to be willing to listen. They have to trust the person they’re communicating with. And until that happens, no amount of persuasion is going to work.
Think about why word of mouth is more persuasive than advertising. If an advertisement says a new restaurant is good, people don’t usually believe it. Because they don’t think they can trust what the ad is saying.
But if their friend says they’ll love the homemade tagliatelle, they’re much more likely to give it a shot. Why? Because that friend has earned permission. They’ve known the friend long enough to assume she has their best interests at heart.
Consequently, seasoned negotiators don’t start with what they want; they start with whom they want to change. Working to gain insight into where that person is coming from. Comprehending and appreciating that person’s situation, feelings, and motives, and showing them that someone else understands.
People in a crisis can feel like they have no support. They’re angry and upset and want to be heard. But it’s gotten to this crisis point because they don’t feel like anyone is listening.
Consequently, Greg Vecchi starts every negotiation the