1. Liking: people like those who like them,
so find out what things you might have in common with others and give them
positive recognition or praise.
2. Reciprocity: people “give and take” and
they tend to respond in kind. If you behave in a collaborative way, they will
tend to do the same.
3. Social proof: people tend to rely on cues
for how others think, feel and act, especially with people who are like them.
Therefore, they can be more easily persuaded if they are made aware of others’
opinions or behavior, especially if these are people they like and/or respect.
4. Consistency: people want to be
consistent, so have them make public commitments about what they will do and
they will want to align their behaviors with these statements.
5. Authority: people tend to defer to
experts or those in positions of authority.
6. Scarcity: people tend to value things
more if they are rare or not easily available. Therefore, creating situations
where people feel they will miss out if they do not act can be effective in
influencing them.
The
research and the applications of these six principles have been impressive, and
the evidence for their effectiveness has been strong. However, I have not seen
many applications of his work in the organizational setting, although recently,
Cialdini (2013) did publish an article with examples of how managers can use these
principles. Furthermore, some have questioned whether these principles apply
cross-culturally. Recent research has not been definitive on this. For example,
Schouten (2008) showed that the authority principle (or source expertise, as
she calls this) seems to be an effective compliance strategy across the Dutch,
Turkish, and Moroccan groups she studied. On the other hand, a study by
Cialdini and his colleagues (Petrova et al, 2007) showed that consistency-based
compliance tactics were more effective with U.S. students than Asian students
(including Chinese, Japanese and Taiwanese). The authors hypothesized that this
technique would work better with people from individualistic cultures like the
U.S. than with collectivistic cultures. Other research has shown mixed results.
Cialdini has argued that these principles do apply across cultures, although
their weights can vary.
In
addition, since these principles were first proposed over 15 years ago, are
these principles as relevant today? For example, there has been an erosion in
the respect that people sometimes confer on authority; with information being
so readily available, people do not seem to hold as much faith in expertise as
they used to. Witness the rise of so-called fake news, where people are more
willing to believe information that conforms with their views, regardless of
the source. In the organizational setting, workers expect to have a greater
voice in decision-making than in the past. We have also seen the emergence of
more complex organizational forms such as matrix organizations, where people
might have two or more bosses, and/or where lines of authority have become more
ambiguous and more complex.
In my experience, I believe these six principles are still worth
considering for managers in the workplace today, with some adjustments; here
are four suggestions for how they can best be applied. First, even before
considering applying these principles, make sure that you build trust with
those you wish to influence. Developing trust is very important in business and
personal relationships, and perhaps even more so when building relationships
across cultures. Once you have established trust with your global colleagues,
you will be able to build a more fruitful working relationship and influence them
more effectively. However, the way you build trust may vary by culture. The
evidence suggests that in individualistic cultures, trust is built primarily on
competence, while in collectivistic cultures, trust is built through
relationships. In fact, in many parts of the world, building relationships
takes precedence over immediately working on the task requirements.
Like
empathy, researchers have identified two types of trust: affective- and
cognitive-based trust. The former is about building the emotional bond between
persons, while the latter is more concerned with gains and losses, and where
competence and reliability are important qualifications for trust to occur. In
some cultures, cognitive-based trust is necessary before affective-based trust
develops, while in other cultures, affective-based trust may have to be
established before cognitive-based trust is built. For example, Kwan and Hong (2014)
state: “In Chinese organizations, it is possible that affective-based trust
serves as the foundation for cognitive-based trust development; that is,
trusting someone’s abilities follows when guanxi
(affective-based trust) has been developed.” (p. 102) Western leaders who are
working with colleagues and business partners from collectivistic cultures
would do well to spend time building and nurturing relationships, and/or
establishing connections with their colleagues’ in-group. As a general rule, I advise
my clients to remember the three Cs of trust-building: find commonality
or connections, show competence, and establish credibility.
Second, and this is related to the first, ask yourself whether
your goal is compliance or commitment. Cialdini’s six principles were formulated
to get people to comply, with the assumption that the relationship would be a
one-off or short-term. However, managers in organizations want more than mere
compliance, and want to make sure that those they are influencing are committed
and engaged. If so, then building trust becomes even more important since such
trust is more likely to lead to commitment. Consider the recommendations for
building trust that Zak proposes in a recent issue of Harvard Business Review
(Zak, 2017). He claims that “… employees in high-trust organizations are more
productive, have more energy at work, collaborate better with their colleagues,
and stay with their employers longer than people working at low-trust
companies.” Among his recommendations are the following: recognize excellence,
induce challenge stress, share information broadly, intentionally build
relationships. Note that these align very well with Cialdini’s principles of liking,
consistency, and scarcity, suggesting that these three principles should be applied
first when building trust.
Third,
you may need to reframe some of these principles when applying them in the
workplace. Here are three examples. One, the take-away for applying the
principle of liking is to build empathy. That is, apply this principle by
showing empathy to your employees, especially in trying to understand their
point of view (what is called cognitive empathy or perspective-taking). Two,
the take-away for managers applying the principle of reciprocity is to be a
role model for employees, to do as you say you will do (rather than simply to
engage in give-and-take). That is, rather than thinking of this principle in
terms of a transactional quid pro quo, apply it by making sure that you are
modeling the right behaviors for your employees; this can have a powerful
influence on their own behavior. Three, the take-away for applying the principle
of scarcity is to build a sense of urgency. Explain to your team why it is
important to act now, and what the costs might be for not acting.
Fourth,
Cialdini has noted that these principles are most effectively applied in
combination. I agree. In addition, I would argue that they should also be
prioritized depending on the situation. This requires that those of us working
across borders get a good understanding of the cultural values and preferences
of different cultures, as well as build our own skill set so we can apply these
principles appropriately depending on the situation and the culture. For
example, the principle of authority will work more effectively in cultures that
are higher in “power distance” than those that are lower in power distance. Having
a Master’s or a Ph.D. or having an important title carries more weight in some
cultures more so than in others – and even in some organizations more so than
in others.
Cialdini, R. (2013). The Uses (and
Abuses) of Influence. Harvard Business Review,
132, 76-81.
Petrova, P., Cialdini, R. and Sills, S.
(2006). Consistency-based Compliance Across Cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 104-111.
Schouten, B. (2008). Compliance Behavior
and the Role of Ethnic Background, Source Expertise, Self-Construals and
Values. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 32, 55-523.
Zak, P. (2017). The Neuroscience of
Trust. Harvard Business Review. January-February, 84-90.
No comments:
Post a Comment