The Small BIG: Small Changes That Spark Big Influence (11 page)

I
n a 1981 hit that appeared in VH1’s Top 100 Greatest Hard Rock Songs, the UK punk rock band The Clash asked, “Should I stay or should I go?” The question posed in their song is likely to be asked as often today as it was upon its release 30 years ago—and not just pertaining to matters of the heart, but to matters of business, too.

Every day millions of customers ask themselves, “Should I stay or should I go?” when finding themselves waiting in line for a service and not knowing how long their wait is likely to be. Shoppers may switch from one line to another in checkouts hoping to pick a faster-moving one. Web users might refresh their browsers in the hope that a chosen download will run faster. Customers contacting a telephone helpline may abandon a current call and call back later in the hope that the wait time will be shorter. We might be living in the fastest-moving, most information-saturated environment ever, but we still spend a considerable amount of our time waiting in line (or online).

Noting that the average American citizen can spend upwards of two years of his or her life waiting in line, researchers Narayan Janakiraman, Robert Meyer, and Stephen Hoch sought to identify the factors that will typically persuade people to stay in line, and what will convince them to abandon the wait completely. Their findings point to several small but important changes that any business or customer service organization can make that could lead to big improvements in customer retention, satisfaction, and service scores.

At the core of this research is the simple intuition that “a queue worth joining is a queue worth persisting in” is advice that is rarely taken. For example, studies have found that as many as a third of callers who are held in line when they contact a call center will hang up and dial again primarily as a result of pure impatience. Tellingly, few people ever benefit from such a strategy because they typically call back at some time in the future and their total cumulative wait time becomes much longer.

When viewed through the lens of persuasion science, deciding “Should I stay or should I go?” pits two fundamental human motivations against each other. On one hand the longer people wait in a queue, the more likely they are to focus their attention on alternative activities they could be accomplishing instead of waiting. Not attending to these alternative activities could be viewed as a “loss” and—given that a fundamental motivation that we all have is to avoid losing—people waiting in line might be motivated to abandon the wait simply to avoid any further loss.

However things are rarely as straightforward as they seem. A case could also be made that people who join a queue have made an active commitment, and therefore the principle of consistency might be activated, causing them to stay put. As each minute of waiting time passes it is possible that their motivation to stay in line actually increases the closer they get to their goal.

So in the context of this tension between avoiding loss and maintaining consistency, what do people typically do? In their studies Janakiraman and his colleagues find that most people make arguably the worst decision of all by abandoning their waits somewhere in the middle. No doubt that this less-than-optimal decision will likely be accompanied by feelings of annoyance, frustration, and displeasure—hardly a desirable situation if the company that these potential customers are waiting to do business with is your company.

This prompts a question: What can be done to mitigate these feelings and to reduce the number of customers who hang up before speaking with your organization? Some obvious answers would be to hire and train more phone staff or to reduce call wait times by analyzing demand and capacity and then managing it more efficiently. While all important, these seem like pretty big and costly endeavors. Given that this book is primarily concerned with deploying the smallest and least resource-intensive strategies, what else could be done? In their studies, which included several laboratory experiments as well as field data from a call center in India, Janakiraman and his colleagues tested an easily implemented
SMALL
BIG that showed good results: Simply providing those in line with distractions and other basic activities for them to engage in while waiting led to a significant reduction in dropped calls. Sounds fairly straightforward, but it works.

We wonder whether this might also provide one of those opportunities in business to turn what is a largely frustrating experience for most people into a positive, and to even create future loyalty. Financial institutions could provide customers waiting on phones with simple tips on money management via their automated voice system or, for customers in bank offices, with activities for kids to teach them about money. A restaurant hostess, rather than leaving those placemats that double as coloring activities for children on the tables, might hand them out to families that are waiting in line to be seated. Embassies experiencing long lines of visa applicants could provide useful distractions for people in the form of information sheets containing common phrases, translations, and insights on local customs such as tipping (or queuing!) that they will find helpful when they arrive.

On the subject of distractions we are reminded of two wonderful examples. The first was related to us by a reader of our INSIDE INFLUENCE blog who recounted a story of a customer who, on calling his cell phone provider, was told by the customer service agent that her system was running slow and in order to save him from waiting, she would call him back later. Having already waited some time to get through, this customer wasn’t going to give up the connection so easily and instead insisted that he stay on the line and wait. “Very well, sir,” replied the customer service agent, “if that’s the case then perhaps you would tell me your favorite song.” The customer was completely puzzled by such a random question but answered anyway. Imagine his sheer astonishment when, having replied “‘New York, New York’ by Frank Sinatra,” the customer service agent began singing it to him.

The second example comes from our UK editor who told us that after calling the Cats Protection Agency he was put on hold, but rather than hearing music, he instead heard the soothing sounds of cats purring.

So maybe the
SMALL
BIG here is for companies to allow people to personalize their choice of on-hold music while waiting. Our choice?

The Clash of course!

S
uppose that you are looking to persuade a new client that yours is the company that deserves a lucrative contract. Alternatively, imagine you want to position yourself as the obvious choice for a new job or promotion. Will you be more successful by making small changes in your approach to highlight your previous experiences and past successes? Or would you be better advised to focus on your potential instead, pointing out to the client or recruiter what you can deliver in the future?

In a quick (and admittedly very unscientific) survey that one of us conducted with folks in the office, a clear answer to this question emerged. You should focus on your past experience and achievements. At first glance this seems to make sense. Actual and real achievements are surely more compelling than the potential to achieve in the future for good reason: They
have
already been accomplished. They are concrete. They leave no room for doubt. Therefore all other things being equal, when it comes to choosing which company will secure that lucrative new contract, the odds will surely favor the one with years of experience and a glut of industry awards compared to the less experienced new-kid-on-the-block that merely has the potential to do well. Similarly, the more attractive prospect for that promotion will be the candidate who has already achieved notable career success, not necessarily the candidate who merely has the potential to succeed.

But in reality this isn’t always the case. Examples abound of budding sports stars who negotiate eye-popping sums of money on the basis of their future potential. Former NFL quarterback JaMarcus Russell was the first overall pick in the 2007 NFL draft, landing a contract with the Oakland Raiders worth an astounding $61 million. Clearly the Raiders saw such potential in Russell that they were persuaded to pay top dollar for his services—potential that never translated into on-field success. In the business world many of us can recall instances when the promising but inexperienced candidate landed the promotion over the more experienced colleague. And if you have ever worked in a business development or sales role, you will at some time have lost a deal to a competitor who, at least on paper, didn’t come close to your levels of experience and past accomplishments.

So when it comes to persuading others, which should you focus on:
potential
or
reality
?

According to persuasion scientists Zakary Tormala, Jayson Jia, and Michael Norton (coauthor of the excellent book
Happy Money
) you should focus on your potential because—somewhat counter-intuitively—the potential to be great at something will often seem more compelling to decision makers than actually being great at that very same thing. In other words, the promise of potential often outshines the reality.

In one of their studies Tormala and his colleagues asked participants to evaluate an applicant who had applied for a senior position in the banking division of a large company. All participants learned that the applicant had received his bachelor’s degree from Cornell University, majored in economics with a 3.82 grade point average, and earned a master of business administration degree from New York University. However, some participants learned that the applicant had two years of relevant banking experience and had recently received a score of 92/100 on a test called the Assessment of Leadership Achievement, whereas other participants learned that the applicant had no relevant banking experience and had recently received a score of 92/100 on a test called the Assessment of Leadership Potential. All the participants were told that both tests assessed how a candidate would likely perform two years down the line.

Remarkably, the participants believed that the applicant in the
potential condition
would be a more successful hire than the applicant in the achievement condition. This was despite the fact that the applicant was objectively much less qualified due to having no prior relevant experience. Interestingly, when asked to predict which of the applicants they believed would be performing better after five years, participants were still much more likely to select the applicant in the potential condition achievement. In a follow-up study, Tormala and colleagues found the same results when participants had to choose between two individuals who differed on potential vs. actual achievement but who were comparable in every other way. These results clearly speak to the power of potential.

It turns out that the persuasive pull of potential over reality didn’t just hold true in a recruitment setting. Tormala and his colleagues also found evidence for the
preference for potential
effect in a more consumer-based environment among users of a social media website. In the study, Facebook users were shown a series of quotes about a comedian. Half were shown comments highlighting the comedian’s potential such as “This guy could become the next big thing” and “Next year everyone could be talking about this comedian.” The other half were shown comments that focused attention on the comedian’s actual achievements like, “Critics say he has become the next big thing” and “Everyone is talking about this guy.”

As was the case with the banking recruitment study, and further demonstrating a general preference for potential over accomplishment, Facebook users registered much greater interest (measured by click rates) and liking (measured by fan rates) when quotes about the comedian’s potential, rather than actual achievements, were highlighted.

But why?

The researchers believe that one potential
3
reason why potential will often capture attention more than reality is due to the fact that reality has happened, making it completely certain. Whereas despite the obvious disadvantages that potential can inject into a message or a communication, the uncertainty that the audience experiences when evaluating the person with potential serves to offer a wonderful advantage—namely, a tendency to arouse more interest.

So does this mean that when it comes to decision making, people will believe potential to be a more reliable decision trigger than reality? Hardly. But given that potential has an arousing quality, which in turn can persuade people to pay greater attention, it makes sense for any communicator to align appeals in a way that prospers from this insight. In fact, the authors of the study go on to make this exact point, suggesting that if supporting information is provided immediately after attention is focused on potential (e.g., a testimonial from a trusted source, a high leadership score, or some other type of persuasive message), the likelihood of a favorable attitude or impression is increased.

Suppose then that the time has come to make the case to a prospective client that yours is the company to do business with. Suppose further that you believe a competitive advantage that your company provides is a mixture of relevant previous experience coupled with new ways of thinking. One small but important area you should pay careful attention to is the order in which you present that combination of advantages. You should position your messages in a way that first focuses that client’s attention on the potential future benefits that your proposal offers, followed by examples of what your organization has previously delivered.

Similarly if you are applying for a promotion, or providing an endorsement for someone who is, then these studies suggest that you would be more effective by first highlighting the future potential you (or the person you are recommending) will bring to the role rather than immediately leading with your prior experience. Doing so could increase the chances that you will capture a recruiter’s interest, meaning that the subsequent information you convey about actual achievements and experience will get more focused attention. Similarly, high school graduates should alert college admissions officers to the potential they offer early on in the personal statements that accompany their college applications.

Real estate agents looking to market an undesirable property might create a more favorable image in prospective buyers’ minds by making small changes that focus more on a property’s potential. For example, they could highlight the possibilities that exist for turning that run-down building into a home office or a delightful retreat for your favorite mother-in-law or suggest that you could “realize your dreams with this renovation project.”

Emphasizing one’s potential could also prove valuable for jobseekers who find themselves with a resume that contains less work experience than likely rival candidates. Here the recommendation is not to focus on one’s experience but instead to focus on upside evidence. Will this simple shift alone be enough to get the job? Maybe not, but it could at least be the key that unlatches the door to a meeting where many other
SMALL
BIG insights from this book could then be deployed to make a good result more likely.