沃顿商学院全套笔记-三十四-
沃顿商学院全套笔记（三十四）
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P91：27_华盛顿广场案例.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Let's do a mini case study， real world example， and ask how you might have gone about forming。
a coalition when one was needed。 The example comes from New York City。
Washington Square Park in the heart of Greenwich Village。
and a battle that took place over multiple decades but really got heated in the 50s。
The key actor here is Robert Moses。 We've heard about Robert Moses in another lecture earlier in the class。
but he was the， director of transportation， the transportation commissioner in New York for decades and known。
as being one of the most influential men in the history of New York。
He held power for something like 45 years。 He had never proposed a project that didn't get done until this point。
What do you run into？ We ran into Jane Jacobs。 This is a picture of Jane from later in her life。
This was in the 2000s， so this is a good 40-50 years after their battle。 Let's see what took place。
The setup was that Moses wanted to take Fifth Avenue through the park。
Fifth Avenue comes down from the north and ends when it hits the famous arc there in。
Washington Square Park。 Moses wanted to run it through the park。
He wanted to divide the park and it would have dramatically changed not only the park。
but the neighborhood by increasing the traffic through that area。
This is a highly congested recreational area and there was a lot of opposition from those。
who lived in the area against this。 Jane Jacobs lived in the area and she was not the first to form this coalition but she was。
early on in the coalition and she proved to be critical to it。 Ask yourself。
if you were living in Washington Square Park in the 50s and Moses wanted to。
build this avenue through your neighborhood， big four-lane busy street， what would you。
have done about it？ You're facing the most influential guy in New York。 How could you stop him？
How would you have gone about stopping him？ Think about how you would hopefully form a coalition。
One of the reasons we believe in coalitions is that when you don't have power， when you're。
in these relatively uninfluential positions， it's one of the best resources you have。
What are you going to do？ One of the places you might think about， well。
let's get my neighbors of course。 Form a petition。
get some signatures and this of course is what they started with。
That may or may not be sufficient depending on how strong the weight is behind the proposal。
It turns out it wasn't sufficient。 What do you do next？
They started trying to bring media in and they did it in creative ways。 For example。
they had protests and being wise to the ways of the media， they tried kids。
out and they really emphasized the impact on children。 Eventually people started writing about this。
This was the dawn of the village voice by the way， the village voice， the first alternative。
weekly newspaper in the US started in New York， started at this era and of course they loved。
this cause。 They recruited those who wrote architecture columns for some of the bigger newspapers。
the dailies to write on behalf of their cause as well。 They pulled the media in here。
What else are they going to do？ They started working with young politicians。
The big established politicians don't want to take on Moses but maybe some of the younger。
guys would。 Ed Koch， for example， eventually the mayor of New York got involved because he needed a。
cause to get his name out there。 They started thinking about celebrities。
It turns out that one of the most famous women in the country at the time， Eleanor Roosevelt。
lived in Greenwich Village and she was very happy to throw her celebrity behind the cause。
With each of these steps， each of these additions to their coalitions， it added to their power。
Eventually， and this was after years， eventually they had a strong enough coalition and enough。
attention that they were able to go to probably the only politician in the area who could actually。
stop Moses and that was Secretary of State De Sapio。 De Sapio was able to exert enough influence。
He saw what these guys wanted and the power they had mustered over years and was able to。
stop Moses from actually extending Fifth Avenue down through the park。
So at the height of the battle， Moses in a final desperate and unsuccessful attempt to。
keep the board of estimate from closing the part to the traffic said， "There is nobody。
against this。 Nobody， nobody， nobody but a bunch of mothers。"， Well， it turns out mothers。
if they're able to form a coalition， can be very influential。
They had gone beyond mothers and children to politicians like Koch， Eleanor Roosevelt。
and eventually to Secretary of State De Sapio。 Jane Jacobs， by the way。
went on to much greater fame。 She has a book called "The Death and Life of Great American Cities。"。
She wasn't even trained in urban policy， urban development， but she wrote the book。
that public policy schools all over the country have used to teach in their schools。
What do we learn from this？ Some thoughts from Jacobs。
One reason her coalition was so effective is that it played at multiple levels。
She had street level protests with individuals。 She had newspaper coverage and editorials。
not just one newspaper， multiple papers。 She had political pressure from multiple offices and candidates。
and she had celebrity， endorsements。 You see how many different levels there are to that。
The best coalitions do play at multiple levels。 Moses was of course trying to do the same thing。
Moses had all kinds of levers， and he would say one thing in press， and he'd have quiet。
meetings behind the scenes also， so he was up against a lot。 They were up against a lot。
It took that kind of sophisticated coalition to get it done。
It was also an extremely strategic coalition。 She was intentional。
They were intentional on how they built this thing。 They earned each new layer of support。
They had to build it at one level before they could expand it to the next level。
One of the big ideas behind coalitions is that you often can't go directly out your target。
You have to go circuitously， indirectly。 These guys couldn't have gone straight to De Sapio。
They just knocked on De Sapio's door on day one。 He wouldn't have listened to him。
He wouldn't have cared， but they built enough support until he kind of needed to listen to， them。
Some closing thoughts on coalitions。 The first， and maybe the main lesson here。
is that you should look broadly for potential， coalitions。 They are the key resource for the weak。
and they are the key threat to the strong。 You will find yourself in weak bargaining positions sometimes。
The number one lever in those situations will be a coalition。 On the other side。
you will sometimes be in these strong positions。 What is the greatest risk？
The greatest risk is a coalition against you。 So we all need to be on the lookout from both sides for these coalitions。
And finally， failures of implementation are almost invariably failures to build successful。
coalitions。 It's a critical tool in your influence toolbox。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P92：28_策略模块简介.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Welcome back to Influence。 We are heading into week three here and in this week we're going。
to drop down into a little more detail on some Influence Tactics。 We're going to do it in two。
parts。 First we're going to talk about Persuasion。
Persuasion is one of these Influence areas that's。
been talked about in research for literally millennia。 So let's understand the frameworks that are。
useful there。 And then in the second half we'll talk about Influence Styles more generally。 Here。
we're pushing against the notion of traits， physical， physiological dispositions being important in。
influence and rather emphasizing behaviors and tactics。 To do that we're going to share with you。
some empirical work that we've done over the last ten years to hopefully fill out your， toolbox。
your Influence tactic toolbox。 Enjoy。 [silence]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P93：29_说服力简介.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
We're going to begin this module talking about persuasion。
And to do that， we'll start with an interview that I did recently with a couple of colleagues。
of mine， Yuri， Simon， and Joe Simmons， about some research they've done recently。
They published an article called "False Positive Psychology， Undisclosed Flexibility and Data。
Collection and Analysis， Allows Presenting Anything as Significant。"。
The final title on a subject that seems a little arcane and yet this paper has been wildly。
influential。 It's been cited 2，000 times since it was published in 2011。
It's arguably the most influential paper in what has been called the reproducibility crisis。
in psychology。 And it raises a question， did persuasion have any role to play in the impact this paper。
is having？ You might think academic research is a place where persuasion shouldn't matter。 In fact。
that's why I wanted to talk to Yuri and Joe because you think this is a place。
where it doesn't matter to his ideas。 But it turns out these guys put a lot of thought into rhetoric and persuasion。
So we sat down with them recently to find out how it went down。
So we're here this afternoon to talk to Yuri， Simon， and Son and Joe Simmons， both professors。
here at Wharton in the Operations， Information and Decisions group about research that they've。
been doing for the last， what fellas， six or seven years now？ Because back a little？ Six years。
Six years on what they initially called false positive psychology。
And they published a paper in 2011 which as of last count has something like 2，000 citations。
in less than six years and more papers behind that。
And people generally give it considerable credit for the conversation in psychology around。
reproducibility。 Some people will call the reproducibility crisis。
And others have had voice in this obviously。 But the paper and the research and the ongoing program has been influential。
We're here to talk today about persuasion， the role of persuasion and rhetoric in that， effort。
And the motivation is that we talk about persuasion all the time and other domains。
We talk about it in marketing or politics inside a firm。
But we don't usually think that something like science would involve persuasion and rhetoric。
My sense of having been around you guys in this project for most of that time is that。
persuasion has been an important part of it。 And so I thought it'd be good and instructive for us to talk a little bit about it and hear。
kind of from the inside how you've thought about that and what your experience with。
persuasion and rhetoric has been in this domain。 This was a paper that we really needed people to read and pay attention to。
Otherwise there's no point at all in doing it。 We were trying to change how the field as a whole did research。
And so for the first time in my life I was involved in a big persuasion attempt。
And so we really did think hard about how on earth to get people to read this paper。
Most people don't read papers that are part of academics。 Even academics for sure。
Most papers do not get read。 So we're going to talk in a lot of detail about this research。
It might be useful to explain in a very short fashion what the enterprise was。
So what exactly were you trying to persuade people to do？
I know that's a ridiculous question but it's concise。
So I basically change how people conduct and report the research。
So the idea is people have， when you conduct a study you collect many measures。
For example you may ask people how they feel about something that you may ask them how。
much they would be， how hard they would work to obtain it。 You may ask them multiple ways。
But then so they if you collect all those measures and you get to choose from them， the。
results report are going to be biased towards the one that works。
So imagine you try a drug and you give it to 100 patients and you see if it helps with。
weight or with their heart condition or with their skin。
And then if you try enough of those things one of them will work。
And then you report your results and you only talk about the one that actually worked。
The other measures will be made lead into thinking that is very persuasive。
very compelling evidence。
when in fact is just chance。 So this is an important feature here that this is basically a methodology paper。
So it's not just persuasion and rhetoric in a scientific endeavor but it's scientific。
methods and so we're really getting into what I think most people would think is pre-dry。
technical area not much room for persuasion。 So how did you position this paper？
How did you argue in this paper in a way that was different from other attempts， other academic。
attempts？ I mean we were writing a methods paper and most methods papers are written for methods。
people and we didn't want to write a paper for methods people。
We wanted to write a paper for normal people， normal academics at least。
And we had the advantage of being normal academics。
So a lot of methods， people writing methods papers are methods people but we're not a。
methods people so we sort of understood like what would it take for us to read a methods， paper。
And so we tried to build a methods paper that we ourselves would want to read。
So we started out by putting simulations in our paper because that sort of showed how。
big the problem was but I think the big insight was that a paper that just contains simulations。
is not a paper that many people are going to read。
And so we thought long and hard many many conversations around what is a good example。
or demonstration of the problem。 And we tried to come up with a demonstration that was interesting。
kind of cute， maybe， people would talk about it， you know that sort of thing。
I think that's sufficiently cute you should tell us real quickly just to describe it at。
a high level。 So we basically wanted to show that scientists could find statistically significant evidence。
for any hypothesis no matter how absurd。 And so we came up with a hypothesis that was demonstrably absurd which is that listening。
to a particular song can change how old you are。 And no one on earth believes that's possible。
And so we ran a study using the norms of the day that basically showed that that effect， was true。
We were like look if you do things the way that they are currently being done you can。
find evidence for this crazy hypothesis and you can write it up in such a way that people。
would be scientists would be persuaded by it。 And so we thought that piece was I think absolutely critical if we hadn't done that。
I'm not sure we would have gotten published but even if we had gotten published it would。
have probably been ignored。 That was one aspect of it。
So in terms of the persuasion thinking about it we would picture our least methodologically。
oriented friend and ask what would get this guy to tell about this paper to his friends。
What would the paper need to contain so it becomes like viral for academic standards？ Okay。
And where did that nucleation come from？ Is that a way you would thought about your work or your teaching or why that pivot from。
the way you might typically write？ The goal we said when we first met to discuss this we said okay so we want to change how。
psychologists do science and that felt like an impossible goal。
And so the first step in persuasion people have to listen to you。
And so I guess we were just very aware of how common it is for people to complain about。
a problem in academia and be ignored for decades and decades。
And so the first step for not being ignored is people need to know what you said。
I think at least introspecting that's what I think of you。 No， yeah absolutely。
So the first piece was basically getting people to want to read the paper by making it interesting。
maybe even a little funny in places， stuff like that。
But the second piece was about you can't just complain， as Yuri was just saying you can't。
just complain about a problem。 You also have to propose a solution。
Otherwise people just keep walking around complaining about it and nothing will ever get， done。
And you also have to produce a solution that is actionable and easy and really hard to。
argue against。 And so that was the other element of the paper that we really strove for。
Other people around that time or shortly thereafter were writing similar type pieces。
but the solutions on offer were utopian。 In fact some people even used the word utopian。
And they were not at all practical。 And they weren't going to happen any time soon and probably not in our lifetime and。
probably not ever。 And so we were trying to think instead of what could journals or what could scientists do。
tomorrow to change how they're doing it。 And so we really tried to find a baby step that would actually work。
actually be impactful， and that was sort of hard to argue with。
So those are sort of the two elements we really focused on。 Almost all of our conversations。
I mean the science of it was figured out in a day or two， or something。
Almost all of our conversations with this paper were about how to persuade。 Wow。
And the paper itself is actually quite short。 It's like nine pages and two or three of those are these prescriptions。
long list of prescriptions。 But obviously the persuasive effort goes beyond the publication。
You then go out and or even before the publication you're out talking about the paper， you're。
visiting schools， you're giving talks。 What， how did you find yourself going about that differently than you had before？
I think we're， we didn't， that we did not alter very much。
We did what we always did except that this time it was an incredible amount of demand。
to hear us talk about it。 So we， we submitted a symposium to a conference which is something everybody does all the。
time you say， here's three papers， please let us talk about it。 And they said， okay。
And usually 20 people show up， 50， maybe 100 people show up。 We had like 800 people。
It's like standing room only。 And that was， it's not like we prepped for that。 It just happened。
And I think it was， it was really just the downstream consequences of having drafted the。
message in the paper appropriately。 But did you， did the。
that must have been reinforcing in some way？ So you， you， you had this pivot to thinking in a more。
thinking about rhetoric more explicitly。 I'd be surprised if you didn't bake that into some of your presentations。
Did you not spend extra time more than usual working on just the right example or just the。
right analogy？ I feel like you guys are always coming up with these。
these analogies that are just so， apt。 Yeah。 I mean， I， I practiced like crazy for that talk。
For sure to try to make sure all the words were right。
But I think that was less of a concern about coming up with the right example in the talk。
Because basically we were using the example from the paper。 So that wasn't really the issue。
It was more about， you know， in my class on decision making， I talk about motivated reasoning。
and how， you know， people are more likely to believe something when they want to believe， it。
And a big implication of that is they don't， they're more likely to believe you if they。
like you than if they dislike you。 If we come out at the symposia and start talking about， hey。
you guys are all doing this wrong， and you know， we're better than you。
And we come out swinging like that。 That's terrible and if， and false。
because we had been doing all of the things that we， pointed out in the paper。
you can look at some of the garbage that I published prior to 2011。 It's， it's terrible stuff。
And so we were also very cognizant of the language was about we as a field and in the。
paper and in talks， we'd emphasize how we had all done these things。 And now all of us。
including us， now need to change the way we're doing things because。
you don't want to get on your high horse。 People are going to hate that。
Beyond just the first paper， you're also very well known for work on P curves。 And in that paper。
you came up with this term P hacking。 You've coined a few phrases now that people know well。
false positive psychology was the， title of the first paper。
This term researchers degrees of freedom。 What role do you think getting the right terms or titles play？
You'd like to think as academics， come on， this shouldn't matter， this is superficial。
but it kind of feels like it mattered here。 I feel like it matters。
It allows conversations to more naturally flow。 I've had a couple of experiences where I've really struggled in a slightly different stream。
of research， really struggled putting forward the ideas in a way that rests on with people。
And then I just， what if I just call it something that， that， so instead of saying， I knew a。
approach to a value in a replication。 And I play with like 10 different iterations of those words in different order。
And then I said， oh， actually， this is really analogous to having a small telescope。
So I really branded the paper the small telescopes problem and it immediately became a much easier。
idea to convey。 When you want to talk about that paper， you say the small telescopes paper。
you don't， have to say the paper or assignments with this thing and it becomes like a two sentence thing。
So I get that entirely。 But I also have been aggravated for years。
We all have been by researchers who are forever naming things， kind of unnecessarily。 It seems。
even well known researchers sometimes forever want to came up with new heuristics。
They're going to name something。 How would you characterize a successful。
effective attempt at naming something new versus kind， of a superfluous， which is something we see？
You know， so it's not just go give something a new name。 You have to do it in some thoughtful way。
So it'd be hacking， for example。 It came after-- so the first paper， the full-spotted one。
used researchers' research of research， of freedom。 And we used that， I don't know。
let's say 10 times。 But then for the following paper， we had to use that every other paragraph。
And it just didn't seem sustainable to use research of research of research of freedom。
a hundred times。 And we don't like acronyms。 We didn't want to have RDFs everywhere。 And so we said。
we need a word。 And so it was really， there's a concept in need of a label。 Let's find the label。
We're supposed to， let's create an artificial need for a label so that we can become famous。
or something。 OK。 So I think that--， Which is the way it feels sometimes。 Yeah。
sometimes it feels like， well， this is really similar to what if I call it different。
maybe we perceive it as different。 That's not-- I don't think I would ever give for that。
Absolutely not。 But if you have a concept that you have to repeat， and every time you repeat it。
you， have to define it， like basically the term is a definition of the term。
That's when you need a word and a term。 What missteps have you made？ You guys have had。
and you're part of a broader effort， of course， big impact。 So you've done lots right。
Do you think there are any places that you've missed or that you would have done differently？ Yes。
Absolutely。 Such a chance。 So early on， we would get-- because we had zero experience on this。
right？ So we were-- we had seven years of experience as researchers， but zero as persuaders， right？
And so when people would push back and say， engage in personal attacks， questioning our， integrity。
or just any criticism of what we're saying， the facts in a very public arena。
it felt like an imperative to immediately and forcefully respond very emotionally。
Just because it felt wrong to do it。 And we did。 And at least I would not do that anymore。
So first of all， it is okay for people to have wrong beliefs that they express publicly about。
your work。 You don't have to respond to all of them。 And then if you do respond。
it's fine for you to remain cool。 There's almost no downside to taking the higher moral ground。
We were talking about this intuition。 I can't remember where we got it from。
where the better it feels to say something， the， probably the worst it is for you to say it。
It's a great year。 And unfortunately， I don't know what it comes from。
So when we're writing something， if it feels great to say it， we try to erase it。 You've written。
I think it was you writing the amount of the more general effort on essentially。
argumentation and science。 Because you guys have been in this debate。
you've kind of learned some do's and don'ts。 What else would you say is important？ Yeah。
so that's immense planning。 That's why he's not a term， exactly。 Yeah， that didn't go on。 Not yet。
at least。 So I think we're three principles。 I'll see if I can remember them。
One was to not assume you know the intentions of your counterpart。
It is very common for people who are criticized to think they know the intentions of the other。
part and that those intentions have not been on。 So it's a personal attack for jealousy or for political reasons。
And the point is， it's not like there's never， of course there's some attacks or personal。
but you don't know as a recipient of a criticism why it comes。
And it's irrelevant because the criticism is right or wrong and if it's wrong， but for。
the right reason it doesn't matter， it's still wrong。 So don't pay attention to that。
The other one was like reaching out。 So if you're going to discuss somebody else's work。
send them a draft and ask them what， they think。 It's fine。
It's not about this and to them this would be impossible。
It's immoral for you to share your story with the person you're describing before you publish， it。
But we have a blog and we do it and it's amazing。 To be clear。
it's immoral because of the rules of journalism。 The rules of journalism。 Objectivity， presumably。
That's right。 They feel like they'll be compromised。
I don't really buy the argument because it's not like you tell them， okay， you write it。
up and I'll publish for you， send me。 I'll feed back。
And so often people get upset with journalists or with bloggers or with scientists because。
they feel they've been mischaracterized。 And it's。
almost every time we share the draft of a blog post where we discuss somebody。
else's work with them， they get incredibly upset about the tiniest thing that you couldn't。
care less about changing。 And you change it and they feel like you've seated a lot of ground and you feel like the。
piece is indefinetrable from what it was like。 So by the way。
that seems to connect to that quote about you rarely change someone else's。
mind without changing your own。 So you're talking about， it's a form of negotiation almost。
You give just a little bit but it feels great to them and it helps in the persuasive effort。
essentially if you can give a little bit。 And then there was a third principle in Minch Splaining。
Yeah， the third principle is described only able。 So don't， so for example。
if you're going to say something is， if you feel something's， wasteful and you call it wasteful。
all you're really saying is， I don't like it。 You're not really helping the recipient of the message understand why you find it wasteful。
And once you've explained what you find it wasteful， you don't really need a label anymore。
because anybody who reads your description will incorporate that。
So you almost never need to tell the recipient what you think。
You're just interested in why you're thinking and they'll figure it out。 For my experience。
it makes messages much more difficult to counter。 Especially because terms can be so loaded and so easy to be interpreted in the wrong way。
especially if you are the person who's being thrown into the term out。 And Yuri。
you just apologize for doing exactly this thing。 I mean you wrote this piece and then within the year you violated your own principle。
But then you also kind of confess to it straight away and say this is。 Well， you know。
it's very natural to feel good， to want to feel good with what things， you say， right？
It's like when you throw the punch that second feels great。 Right？
Is there a rest of your life that you regret it？ But that instantly feels great。 Right， right。
right。 Anything else fellas？ Anything else about rhetoric and persuasion you think we haven't touched on that's especially。
important or that you've learned along the way？ I mean。
just related to what Yuri was just saying is I think he's a million times better。
than I am at all the stuff he was just suggesting。
I think we've also really benefited from being a team of three。 So。
Lafe Nelson is also part of our team and he's at the University of Berkeley。
And a team of three is sort of for us I think is being critical because there are times。
when two of us get very worked up and emotional and want to respond to an email in a certain。
way or want to post something online in a certain way that violates these kinds of principles。
And there's almost always at least one of us who has the cool head and we always check。
with the other two before doing anything。 And so it's especially for me it's really been helpful over the years because I could。
have if I was doing this on my own because I'm a more emotional person and basically I'm。
a bigger idiot is what I'm saying。 I would have probably done a lot of damage to the cause。
But do you eventually start internalizing some of those voices and perspectives having worked。
in that group and Lafe importantly great let's recognize Lafe as well but having worked。
with Lafe in the years as close as you have for these years at some point you'll never。
not need them at all but do you need them a little bit less？
I mean yesterday we wrote something we sent it to Lafe and said isn't this great？
I was like no you really don't want to send that。 And so we turned this page long email into a very polite sentence。
And so it's hard because when you're experiencing the frustration or the anger it's just really。
hard to。 The best you can do is have policies like I write emails and then I don't put the person's。
name in it who I'm directing it to so I don't accidentally hit send and then after I write。
it I'm like that's going to feel really good to send and then I save it or I forward it。
to them and ask if I can send it and 100% of the time they would say no you cannot send。
it or I would not send it to them and realize two days later that of course you can't send。
that you need to sort of calm down。 These are policies like my experience of this stuff unfortunately has not changed so the。
misery is still there of dealing with this kind of stuff。
You know it's not that different from over buying or over eating when you're hungry。
It's just a very it's a it's emotional drive。 Is that visceral？ Yeah it's a visceral reaction。
It's a very basic instinct of expressing your anger when you experience it。 Yeah I sort of feel bad。
There's lots of people in the field who have weighed in on these arguments and they've。
made some people have made just massive missteps by posting things online and I feel like they're。
going at it alone so like they don't have the person like whispering their ear or chaining。
them to the floor you know telling them not to do this。
And so we've had the benefit of at least having the three of us and I don't want to say that。
I think there have been times where even all three of us sort of together did the wrong。
thing but but it's way way less frequent than otherwise would have been if we if we had。
gone it alone。 Great。 All right guys thanks for the time very much。 Thanks for the good。
Yeah appreciate it。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P94：30_希思兄弟.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So we started this topic of persuasion with a discussion with a couple of academic researchers。
to get a concrete real world example of using rhetoric in the perhaps surprising place， academic。
research。 We heard some themes there and some priorities they had as they tried to convince the world。
their ideas mattered。 And I think you'll see as we drop into the literature of persuasion that it connects。
to some of the main ideas that folks who have studied persuasion per se say are important。
I want to start that by talking about some research by two brothers， Chip Heath and Dan， Heath。
who now have written three books。 But their first book was about persuasion。
It's called Made to Stick， published in 2007。 And it came from Chip Heath's work on understanding。
begin with understanding urban legends。 What makes urban legends persist， what makes them catch on。
what are the elements that make， them especially sticky。
It was an odd topic for an academic researcher to start with and people really didn't know。
where he was going at the time。 But from that question and from his research came this book。
which has been very important， and has given us some great thoughts on how we can be more persuasive。
So they use an acronym to summarize their work。 The acronym spells out success and success stands for in their framework simplicity。
unexpectedness， concreteness， credibility， emotions and stories。 Something about this literature。
Heath and Heath's as well as other places is that it's， not brain surgery。
This is not stuff that you really need me to sit here and explain to you。 You can read these ideas。
We've got， you can dig into the whole book even just the introduction or the conclusion。
from this book will help you understand where they're coming from。
The challenge is actually using it。 So the beautiful thing about this book is that it gives us an example after example and。
reminder after reminder of how important and what an impact these ideas can have。
So keeping your message simple， if at all possible， coming up with unexpected elements。
telling people things they don't already know， using concrete examples， staying away from。
pure abstractions。 Stepping into emotions and then finally in one of the most prevalent themes in their。
work telling stories。 So we'll talk about a little more detail of what they study but this is their overarching。
framework and one of the things they say is that you don't have to do all of these。
Persuasive message doesn't have to have all of these traits。
They compare it to talking about the attributes of a great basketball player。
It would be fabulous if a basketball player was off the charts with rebounding， assist。
and scoring as well as defense but to be a successful basketball player you don't have。
to be off the charts and all of them。 Though the more you are strong in the better you're going to be。
Same with the persuasive message。 There was a study of what makes an effective advertisement。
Heath and Heath talk about they're distilling from effective ads a template of six different。
approaches essentially to effective ads and in the end they say all creative ads resemble。
one another but each loser is uncreative in its own way。
The argument here is that there is really kind of a recipe for what makes a message persuasive。
There are systematic ways to produce creative， innovative， sticky ideas。
One of the big messages they give us you might even think of this as the fundamental persuasion。
era is that one of the worst things about knowing a lot is that we're tempted to share it all。
Once you've worked hard on a project or once you've become an expert in the field you tend。
to want to share the expertise you want to share everything you know and that's almost。
exactly the opposite way of crafting a persuasive message。
The message should start with the audience and not with what you know。
So there's a bias from the very beginning to try to do too much。 It's a good bias to lean against。
This picture here is a relief above the door of the Yale Law School and I was amazed and。
entertained that the law school would have the humility to put this there。
I think it's a great reminder to academics。 Academics not only at Yale Law School but other places that we're tempted to share too much。
sometimes and the most effective way to educate is not to share everything that you know。
Some other stories and details in Heath and Heath that I think are especially important。
for us to remember。 One is this distinction between the answer stage and the telling others stage。
I remember working as a young consultant being feverishly away at preparing a project for。
a presentation， preparing a project for a client and essentially awake you in the day of the。
presentation and manager walking in and going okay so how are we going to convey this message。
What are we going to say to these guys？ I hadn't put any thought that。
I was just trying to get the answer。 All my time was focused on getting the answer。
I hadn't allocated any time to how I'm going to convey that answer to the most important， person。
the client on this engagement。 This is something we often run into。
We focus too much on the answer stage and we forget the importance of the telling other， stage。
Heath and Heath say that the very qualities that help you in the first stage hurt you in。
the second。 If you're really good at getting the answers that sometimes gets directly in the way of。
actually communicating those answers。 We need to appreciate and preserve time for the telling others stage。
A second idea they provide is this curse of knowledge。
This draws on decades of psychology actually but they talk about a study in the field where。
people experimental subjects were assigned to being either a tapper or a listener for a。
particular task。 The task was the tapper would be told the name of a song。
a piece of music and they were， there to tap out on the desk or the table the music to the other person in the way that。
they could understand what they were saying， what they were tapping。
The other person of course is trying to guess the music。
An interesting wrinkle here is that they would ask the tapper what's the likelihood that the。
other person is going to guess what you're tapping。 Do you predict that they'll be able to guess it？
So tappers thought that they would get about one out of two and in fact listeners got one。
out of forty。 It is essentially impossible to listen to someone tapping a song and a desk and no one。
through tapping。 That's not surprising。 What's surprising is how hard it is for the tapper to understand that。
The tapper can't get the music out of their own head and because they can't get the music。
out of their own head they can't put themselves in the shoes of the person who's listening。
They can't。 It's hard to grab their perspective of the other side。
Good communicators get the music out of their head and put them shelves in the situation。
of the listener who's hearing it for the first time。
It's one of the most important things you can do as you prepare a persuasive presentation。
The terrifically interesting study on stats versus stories。
He assigned his students to make one minute speeches and they didn't know that afterwards。
they were going to be asked questions about each of the speeches。 What did they remember？
So as they made speeches he coded did they use statistics in their speech and did they。
use stories in their speech。 What he found was in these one minute speeches students used on average two and a half statistics。
per speech and only one out of ten students used a story。 However。
when he asked the students afterwards after everyone had given their speech he asked。
them what do you remember about each of the speeches that you heard？
63% remembered a story and only 5% remembered a stat。
Remember they were given something like 25 times more stats than stories and yet 12 times。
more frequently they remembered the story not the stat。
This reminds me of a quote from a former student of mine and a continued friend and colleague。
Ken Katonella who currently is assistant general manager at the Sacramento Kings。
He was a Fuqua MBA， graduated in '05。 He's worked for a number of MBA teams over the years。
He says he played basketball and then his professional niche was statistics and analytics， first。
But he said despite having that analytic background that the key is the story。
A lot of people want to boil it down to a number。
It's never just a number。 It's a story。 This from a numbers-oriented field。
This from a guy who's very purchased into the league with stats。
He says it still always comes down to a story。 There's a quote from Robert Moses who we studied earlier in the course。
One of his closest assistants over the years was a fellow by the name of Jack Madigan and。
Madigan talked about how persuasive Moses was。 When we talked about Moses we talked about all the different sources of power he had。
He was also a master of persuasion。 Madigan says it never ceases to amaze me how you can talk and talk and talk to some guy。
about something you've got in mind and he isn't very impressed。
And then he bring in a beautiful picture of it or better yet a scale model with the bridge。
all in white and the water nice and blue sea and you can see his eyes light up。
Moses knew the power of a diorama。 Moses knew the power of persuasion if you can make it concrete and exciting to somebody。
It's a good juristic to keep in mind as you prepare your presentation。 Where's your diorama？
You're not often going to actually have a diorama but you need something in your persuasive。
message that acts like a diorama。 Where is your diorama？
Let's end with a quote from President Abraham Lincoln who was known as a persuasive speaker。
as well not only in his big public speeches but as an individual on a more interpersonal， level。
Lincoln said though the cause be naked truth itself transformed to the heaviest lance。
harder than steel the sanctimonious reformer could do no more pierce the heart of the。
drinker or the slave owner than penetrate the heart shell of a tortoise with a rise。
draw such as man and so must he be understood by those who would lead him。
In order to win a man to your cause Lincoln explained you must first reach his heart。
the great high road to his reason。 Lincoln says here basically that it doesn't matter how good you cause it doesn't matter。
how strong your intentions you've got to get to the heart first if you don't get to。
the heart you're never going to get to the head。 Lincoln followed that advice Lincoln was one of our best presidents and one of his part。
of his success came from understanding how to persuade people。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P95：31_西尔迪尼.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Before Heath and Heath， there was Chaldini。 Chaldini is probably the single most。
contemporary researcher of influence。 You can read his work in any number of， places。
There was an HBR about 15 years ago。 His original book， "Call to Influence，"。
has been in multiple editions。 Many folks are exposed to his work in classes and， undergrad。
grad school， and his initial motivation came from trying to understand。
how things like door-to-door salesman worked。 How。 those people who were。
successful in that situation， what were they doing？ He actually did first-person， research。
He signed up and sold door-to-door in order to be trained in those。
techniques and find out what it was that was going on。 From his research and over， the years。
and now it's been decades， he's distilled it down to six principles。
Chaldini considers this these six principles of persuasion。 Like Heath and。
really like much of the field， there's not much here that is surprising or that， hard to understand。
The challenge is let's get exposed to it and then keep it。
salient as we try to give our persuasive messages。 So in just a nutshell， his。
principles are reciprocity， social proof， consistency， authority， scarcity， and， lacking。
So reciprocity is a notion that we're talking about elsewhere in this， course。
Long-established in sociology and psychology that we're inclined to treat。
other people the way they treat us。 So if you want others to cooperate with you。
you cooperate with them。 If you want others to be nice to you， you do be， nice to them。
If you want others to give something to you， it helps to give， something to them。
So it turns out that this is a bit of a sales technique used， in various places。
Social proof is the demonstration that others are doing what， you want people to do。
To demonstrate to others that others have bought in， they've committed， they've engaged。
using others as an example of the behavior， trying to elicit。
Consistency is one of the more subtle ideas in Chaldini's， principles。 This is。
it calls it commitment and consistency and it draws on working， psychology on dissonance reduction。
Once a person is stated a commitment to a， course of action， they're inclined。
especially if that statement was， given in a voluntary way， in a public way。
they're going to be inclined to stay on， that course。
So if you can elicit from someone a commitment， especially a， voluntary one and a public one。
the more that they will stay in line with that， commitment over time。
A fourth principle from Chaldini is authority。 This is， calling on those who have credentials。
credibility， history， drawing on other， people's credibility essentially to back the claims that you're making and the。
causes you're trying to elicit from others。 Fifth is scarcity。 This of course， of。
course people find more valuable those resources that are more scarce。
Chaldini's talking about something more subtle than that， which is that the。
perception of scarcity can drive people to increase their demand for it。 So if。
people think an offer is only available for a limited time， they're， if they， credibly believe that。
they're going to be driven to act on it with more， urgency。
And then finally liking this draws on an ocean again long established。
in psychology of similarity that we are more persuaded by those we are more， similar to。
And this one is sufficiently common and sufficiently available that I。
want to give one quick example。 And I'm going to give an example by contrast， essentially。
And this is just a quote from a book but it makes the point very， nicely。
The quote itself comes from a Barbara King Salver book called "Prodigal， Summer。
" And it was used by Amy Clark in a New York Times article a few years ago， to point this out。
She says， the quote， let's go with the quote first， the quote is， "Bite，" he had said。
with the northerners clipped "I" an outsider intruding on this， place like a kazoo vine。
So it is an observer noticing someone speak with the。
dialect that's a little different than the local dialect。 And as a result this。
person gets categorized as this foreign negative vine that they're familiar with。 So Amy Clark says。
"One vow instantly marks the speaker as the outsider， leading， to assumptions about his politics。
religion and trustworthiness。 It's a， brilliant comparison to the kazoo vine a choking weed imported from Japan the。
late 19th century that swallows entire hills and trees。 But you see what she's。
emphasizing there that once a person is marked as an outsider all the， categor。
the assumptions that come with that category， politics， religion， trust。
worthiness all of which are negative here because they're an outsider come。
along with it all because they spoke differently。 We can flip that all around。
and one of the things Chaldini is saying basically that when you're trying to。
persuade others you want to get onto similar ground in some way。 You want to。
establish a commonality with the audience because once you've done that。
they're gonna find you more persuasive。 They're gonna be more open to you。 They're。
gonna be coding you not as an outsider but as an insider with all the。
beneficial attributes that come with that。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P96：32_亚里士多德.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So we began this conversation about persuasion with recent work by Chippeth and Dan Heath。
And then we went further back to kind of the bedrock work in psychology from Chaldini。
But we can go back further yet to Aristotle's time and ancient rhetoric because they give。
us a framework that is in some ways simpler than the more recent ones。
And yet includes almost all the same elements that the more recent research has emphasized。
So we can look at it as here's another framework or we can look at it as here's an umbrella。
concept framework for holding these other more recent ideas。 And I think both are useful。
So let's just take a moment and understand how Aristotle talked about rhetoric。
There are three means of persuasion according to ancient rhetoric， logos， pathos and ethos。
Logos is the logic of the idea。 Pathos is the emotion of the audience and ethos is the character of the speaker。
So you can see that these are focused on three different elements in the persuasive dynamic。
One is the speaker， of course the origin of the idea。
The second is the idea itself which needs to be logical。 And finally the audience。
the target of the persuasive message， the emphasis being on。
applying the emotions of the target audience。 So these ideas map onto things we've been talking about and many of our students around。
here certainly in business schools don't need that much help on the logo side。
In fact you might think that they are very strong with logos and kind of neglect the other， too。
This is typical when people think about persuasive messages。
They typically think first about the logic of the force of their idea。
The research we've been talking about with Heath and Heath and much of what we talk about。
with Chaldini but especially with Heath and Heath is focused on pathos。
It's a reminder that what makes persuasive messages sticky is what or the emotions they。
engender and other people。 So much of what we've talked about emphasized logos and pathos。
Ethos is kind of the neglected leg of Aristotle's framework。
It shows up a bit in both Heath and Heath and Chaldini but we don't hear people talk about。
it as much and people don't understand it as much and they find it harder to execute。
So I'm going to give you one example on the Ethos side。
This example comes from a speech that Ben Franklin gave at the Constitutional Convention。
Very appropriate since we're in Philadelphia the Constitutional Convention was here in。
Philadelphia and Ben Franklin founded the University of Pennsylvania back in the day。
So he stood up to a proposal that was made for salaries in some of the executive offices。
and it's interesting to observe how we went about this。
Now remember Franklin was not only a brilliant mind and an inventor and many many many other。
things。 He was also a diplomat。 He was known as being good with persuasion and rhetoric。
This is how he begins his speech。 He says， "It is with reluctance that arise to express a disapprobation of any one article。
of the plan。 In which we are so much obliged to the honorable gentleman who laid it before us。
From its first reading I have borne a good will to it and in general wish it success。
In this particular of salaries to the executive branch I happen to differ and as my opinion。
may appear new and shimirical it is only from a persuasion that it is right and from。
a sense of duty that I hazard it。 The committee will judge of my reasons when they have heard them and their judgment may。
possibly change mine。 I think I see inconvenience in the appointment of salaries。
I see none in refusing them but on the contrary great advantages。"， So what do you see him do there？
What do you see Franklin do？ The idea of ethos in rhetoric is that we have to convey our character through our speech。
We can't get up there and just claim who we are。 We have to show who we are in the way we go about trying to persuade other people。
It seems that Franklin accomplishes a number of things in the way he begins his speech。
One he says that he is basically favorably inclined so he is in some sense flattering。
the other side。 He is letting them know that he is not opposed to them in principle。
In fact he is appreciative of them。 He also is claiming in his words disinterestedness。
He is neutral on this。 It is not out of some prejudice that he opposes these proposals。
And he also at the end does this very clever thing which says， "Look judge my opinion。
In fact maybe based on your reaction I might change my mind。"。
He is not saying that he is so fixed that he is a zealot here。
That he is coming out from some kind of permanent position。 But rather this is my take。
I am reasonable。 I am open。 This is my take。 Now we don't know if any of these things are true but he is not trying to accurately reflect。
his actual beliefs。 What he is trying to do here is be effective。
In persuasion and in rhetoric there is a difference between being right and being effective。
Franklin here is trying to be effective。 In doing so he really gives us a nice example of ethos in persuasive speech。
Back to Aristotle。 One of the ideas here is that the three part framework of rhetoric is a simpler way to。
carry forward these ideas about persuasion。 I love the work by Heath and Heath and the folks that have worked on that afterwards love。
the work by Chaldini and all that that is produced but sometimes it is a lot to keep。
on top of six principles from Chaldini。 The success acronym from Heath and Heath。
Aristotle gives us three。 There are times and places when you really need to draw on all three of these。
Sometimes you sit down for a very important message， a very important email。 It is a good reminder。
Aristotle gives us a good reminder。 Where is my pathos in this message？ Where is my ethos？
How am I getting that across？ In what way does my message have logos？
It is a very simple framework and in that framework we can hang much of what we see from Chaldini。
and Heath and Heath。 For example， logos， the inherent logic of the idea。
You see elements of consistency there， scarcity， social influence， simple。
All falls under the logos rubric。 What about pathos？ The emotion of the audience。 Well， clearly。
specifically Heath and Heath talk about emotions。 They talk about story， surprise， concrete。
All of those are elements of pathos。 They are ways or paths towards pathos。 And finally， ethos。
the character， the speaker。 We see people， we have seen Chaldini and Heath and Heath talk about this as well。
especially， Chaldini credibility， liking， similarity， authority。 All of those are elements of ethos。
Just suggesting this is kind of an easier framework for hanging many of these bigger， ideas。
the newer ideas on the broader framework。 Not least because the challenge with persuasion， again。
isn't that you understand it as much， as you remember it。
You need to find a framework that is useful for you that you'll actually implement that， you'll use。
The Dean at the Yale School of Management gave an interview a few years ago talking about。
the role of Aristotle's rhetoric in her own messages。
This is Sharon Oster who's an economist at Yale。 She stepped in to take the Dean's role for a few years between permanent appointments。
by other deans。 She talked， I heard her talk about how often she would take Aristotle's framework to her。
speeches。 The Dean's of business schools fly around the country giving updates about what flying。
around the world， talking to alumni， giving updates on what's going on in the school。
and give a lot of speeches。 She found it useful to think in Aristotle's three-part framework， ethos。
pathos， logos， and as she talked about it in an interview， she says。
"The question of how we teach the， skills and values that people will need to create this kind of value-added leadership。
is a difficult one。 It's one that all management schools really struggle with。"。
Another framing we think about comes from Aristotle， a leader needs logos， pathos， and， ethos。
You can layer that onto the issues we're discussing。
We all as educators think about the logos part because we're in the business of training。
people and skills like analytics。 I think we do some with ethos， ethics and values。
but we actually do very little with， pathos。 And then Rick Levin who is Yale President at the time says。
"The passion。"， Oster says， "Yes， how do you get people not only follow their own passion but to create。
passion in others and lead them in that way？"。
Aristotle gives us a great framework。 I found it useful。
Many others have found it useful for millennia。 And here's a nice example from a leader in business education talking about how it has。
influenced her own use。 Thank you。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P97：33_关于说服力的总结.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
So a few closing thoughts on persuasion。
First， one of the quotes that Heath and Heath gives us is that one of the worst things about。
knowing a lot or having access to a lot of information is that we're tempted to share it all。
I think of this as the fundamental presenters era and the prescription that comes out of it is。
to find the core。 Cut， cut， cut， find the core and build around the core。 A second is that emotion。
is key。 It isn't the case that more is always better。 You have to match the audience that requires。
some sensitivity and preparation， but it is the case that we often underestimate the importance。
of emotion， especially those of us in the business world， in the business education world。
trained analytically。 We can neglect what turns out to be one of the most powerful levers。
available to us， and that is emotion。 Finally， there's a message here that unseen power is。
particularly influential。 Unseen persuasive efforts are particularly influential。 So if we can slip。
below the defenses essentially， folks get defensive if they know you're trying to sell them something。
If you can slip below the defenses， you're going to be a little bit more persuasive。 So social。
influence is a great way of doing that。 Daily exposure， whether it's to the environmental settings。
persons in， the language they're exposed to， the colleagues they spend time with。 These are all。
ways that people are wildly influenced over time。 One of the reasons is the repeated exposure。
Another， reason is because it's below their defenses。
Another closing thought is that rhetoric shouldn't be， the primary focus。
We didn't lead the whole course with this。 We're not putting undue emphasis on it。
We think it's probably more like a tertiary consideration。
but there are times and places where it matters a， lot。 The Greeks had a term for this， chyros。
It's kind of the unappreciated fourth element of rhetoric。 They're talking about timing essentially。
That an important consideration and a persuasive effort is， the time， right？
We connect that to the notion of situational awareness。 We talked earlier in the。
course about situational awareness。 You got to know when is the time to sit down and put a lot of。
thought into that persuasive message because there will be those moments。 And then finally， let's。
acknowledge that this is a gradual process。 You're not going to turn overnight from someone who。
thinks about these things to someone who uses them all effectively。
A big theme here is that none of， these things are that complicated。
The biggest challenge is keeping them salient。 So you do that， by practicing。
You do that by having a success early and then building on it。 What we're aiming for。
here is to make it a chronic orientation。 To make it when you're presenting or when you're talking or。
when you're writing a note， you realize you need to drop a little pathos in here。
You need to find a， way to build your ethos in here and to do it in a manner that doesn't rug people the wrong way。
Final message going back to the relief above the Yale Law School entrance is too much logos。 One of。
the biggest themes across all of this work is there are just more ways to persuade than just logic。
Most of us are trained in that way。 Many of us find it intuitive and therefore we use it too much。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P98：34_评估影响策略.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
In this half of the module， we're going to talk about influence styles and we'll draw。
on the survey you've done separately on the leverage inventory。
So the leverage inventory is designed to help you understand how much influence you have。
How much are you getting out of the skills and positions that you find yourself in？ Generally。
are you well leveraged？ Are you under leveraged？ So more importantly， why and why not？
We want to dig into why and why not so that you can understand what you need to do to。
increase your leverage and have more impact。 In the end。
we're going to ask you to identify some strengths you are currently working with。
and some weaknesses you'd like to shore up。
So remember， that's where we're aiming。 We're going to talk through the survey。
We're going to talk through some results we've seen with this survey。 But ultimately。
we want you to reflect on based on your survey and your understanding of these。
different tools what it is you need to work on and what it is you can leverage。
So it's important in this discussion to remember that we're talking about kind of current fitness。
We're not talking about fixed rates。 This is not a DNA test。
This doesn't say you are this type of person and you will be for the rest of your career。
This is the current state you're in。 I like to give the example of Steve Jobs who of course was famously strong-minded。
but even， Steve Jobs was malleable。 In an article in the Financial Times after he died， they write。
"Steve Jobs' "Fistidiousness， and attention to detail were legendary as was his irascibility。
But Ed Catmull， co-founder and president of Pixar， says he also had a capacity to change。
"I think there are misconceptions about Steve， which have been colored by his earlier behavior，"。
Catmull said。
"What people missed was that Steve was so smart。 He realized a lot of those things weren't working well for him and he altered his behavior。
So for the last 15 years of his life， the same people stayed with him。
People can change and he's demonstration of that。 A good illustration for us。
There is nothing we're about to talk about that you couldn't change about yourself if。
you wanted to and if you focused on it。 The leverage inventory's overarching point is that there are multiple approaches to influencing。
people and the most successful influencers draw on a range of them。 Most of us。
as you advance and you gain more responsibility， you need more and more of these， influence tools。
We typically have go-to moves。 You've been successful in your life using these moves。
You tend to go back to it。 Some people are good with spreadsheets and they always want to be the person working。
in the numbers。 Some people are very demanding and they bring a hammer and they can beat people over the。
head。 Some people are just the opposite。 They're kind of backslapers。
They want to take people to lunch and get to know people and be friends。
These are very different ways to influence people。
They're all available to all of us but we tend to stay within a relatively narrow range。
We tend to stay with our go-to moves。 Another motivation today is to help round out your influence toolbox。
Last reminder， this is not a DNA test。 This is like， say， if we ask you to run an 800 meter today。
Right now， get some shoes on， let's go out and do it。 It doesn't say that's the fastest you can run。
Some of you might be at your peak condition。 You're ready to do it and that's about as good as you can do。
Many of you have it run 800 meters in a while and it's probably not reflective of what you。
could do at your best。 That's where we are。 Look at your current state and then ask you to reflect on what you need to shore up。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P99：35_评估内容.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
The leverage inventory is intended to assess you across a wide range of。
influence strategies。 So let's look at what these are。 You can think about it in a few。
different buckets。 First， this persuasion bucket。 Logos， pathos， and ethos。 These are。
the components of Aristotle's rhetoric。 We've seen them in our section on。
persuasion and we'll talk about them in a little more detail as we go through the， individual tools。
The second bucket is relationships， dyadic relationships。 You。
might think about them as negotiation relationships。 This set includes， exchange， might。
and allocentrism。 And then the last bucket you might think of more。
as the structure of relationships。 More the macro look at your relationships。 And。
these include networks， coalitions， and team building。 So this set of nine comes。
from kind of a common framework， almost conventional wisdom out there on what。
the influence strategies are。 So we've listed them here in three columns。 One is。
the leverage inventory。 And then another is the hey groups tool。 This is one of the。
early industry tools that assesses influence tactics。 And then a third， column with McKinsey。
the consulting firm。 They train their consultants on， influence tactics。
And we've lined them up so you can see how common each of these。
rows is basically tapping into the same thing。 So you only need ten rows to cover。
the nine topics that all three groups are covering。 The point here is that。
there's pretty much a canon， a conventional wisdom around what the key， influence tactics are。
We're going to go beyond this， but this is our starting， place。 These are the first nine。
So what I want to do is go through each of these， nine and give you just a quick summary。
but also identify the survey questions， that are related to each of these tactics so that you know you want to tie。
your results to to these concepts。 The first is allocentrism。 So this is the。
opposite of egocentrism。 This is an other orientation。 A person who actively seeks。
others interests and considers their preferences。 It's related to empowerment， collaboration。
It's related to what Jeff Efre refers to as sensitivity to others。
It's related to the negotiation framework。 First put out there by Errian Fisher， getting to yes。
The survey questions we use to operationalize this concept are， listed here。
They include looking for solutions that will benefit all the， parties involved。
I'm not going to read each of them， but listens， attentively when listens attentively when others talk。
This is trying to， understand where the other side is coming from。 Not necessarily to give them。
everything they want， but let's understand where they're coming from。 Allocentrism。
A second is exchange。 This is a willingness to to quid pro quo， but a。
preference for going beyond it。 So it's highly related to reciprocity， which。
we've talked about in previous lectures。 It's highly related to Bob Axelrod's。
game theoretic concept of tit for tat。 The survey questions here include things。
like offering rewards to people for compliance， understanding the need to help。
others in order to get help from them。 We use six different questions to build a。
scale to tap into to reflect what exchange is。 A third is might。 Might is a。
willingness to use coercive power。 More generally an ability to address。
difficult issues and tolerate conflict。 So in the very beginning of this course， we。
talked about French and Raven and their notion of coercive power。 This is。
tightly connected to that。 We operationalize this with survey questions。
like standing up for his or her opinion， able to tolerate conflict， letting people。
know when they perform below expectations。 These all group under this umbrella of， might。
In my experience in the classroom， this is something that students， some。
students really struggle with。 Some， many of them need to exercise this a little， more freely。
even if it's not on a daily basis。 And then there are some on the。
other end of the spectrum who probably need to dial it back a little bit， perhaps。
might be a little too comfortable exercising might。 Another concept is， networks。
The idea here is to cultivate a broad and disparate set of informal， relationships。
This is connected to the notion of structural holes。 Research by， Burt and before him， Granovetter。
We talked about that earlier in the course。 Survey questions here are things like maintaining relationships that span。
disparate groups or making an effort to become friends with colleagues at work。 Another concept。
coalitions。 We have an entire day on coalitions， so you're well， tooled on this by now。
Identifying and getting the support of key people， it's。
connected in some ways to childini's social influence。 It's connected to animal， behavior。
We saw multiple examples from Franz Duall， the primatologist and the。
concept we talked about the practice of having the meeting before the meeting。 So。
we operationalize this with questions like and listing the support of。
individuals one by one in order to build support for an idea。 Another tactic， team building。
This is building groups， prioritizing cohesion， highly connected， to organizational culture。
to the concept of socialization。 The questions we use， here are prioritizing group cohesion。
helping articulate an inspirational， vision for a group。
making appeals to values or principles shared by the group。
All of these are around building teams and keeping people closely connected。 Another concept， logos。
This is back to Aristotle and the notion of persuasion。 Using logical reasons。
expertise or data to convince or persuade others。 So five， quick。
punchy ways we operationalize this， finding ways to make points as， simply as possible。
gathering data to support his or her position， using arguments， that are well reasoned。
This is something our MBAs typically do pretty naturally。
so this isn't the hardest part of persuasion but many people still need to， focus on this。
A second component in persuasion is pathos。 This is conveying。
message in a way that has emotional resonance。 Of course this again comes。
from Aristotle and Cicero。 It's connected to the readings we did by， Heath and Heath。
Some of the ways we operationalize it。 Using stories to help， make my points。
This is one of the things many people mostly did add to their， rhetoric。
tailoring communication content and style to this specific audience。 So we。
have six different ways here。 We talked about persuasion in some detail a couple， of lectures ago。
Heathos， the third and final component of Aristotle's rhetoric。
establishing personal credibility through credentials， commonality and decorum。 You。
meet others expectations for your role。 So it does connect to some of Chaldini's， concepts。
Similarity and authority， it connects to the French and Raven idea of， expert power。
We operationalize it with a couple of items， four items， presenting ideas with confidence。
making his or her efforts and， accomplishments known。
This is one of the things that adds some flavor to this， particular concept。
Many people struggle with this。 What we know is that people。
will be more persuasive if the audience understands their credentials and their， credibility。
The challenge though is we know we don't like to be told by other。
people what my credentials and credibility are。 So how do you get that。
across so that you'll be more persuasive without being a jerk and turning people， off。
It's one of these wonderful little challenges in influence。 So that is an。
overview of the first nine。 And that is again kind of the conventional wisdom。
the canon in the field。 And that's where we started when we first started using， this tool。
building this tool years ago。 But in working with executive MBAs and， studying the literature。
we thought there were a few components missing and we've。
added three and we think of them as meta tools or kind of tools to figure out how。
to use the other tools。 They are agency intentionality and situation awareness。
So let's spend just a little bit of time understanding what these three mean。
Agency is shaping situations， influencing circumstances to suit needs， challenging status quo。
accepting nothing is fixed。 It's connected to the ideas of， initiative and control。
It's connected to research and sociology on rule breakers。 We see many examples in this course。
Robert Moses， Jeanette Saude Kahn that， illustrate this。
Some of the behaviors we assess through questions。 Creating new， alternatives。
acting before being asked to。 And again Jeanette Saude Kahn， she is a。
great illustration of this。 Here she is Transportation Commissioner was in recent。
years Transportation Commissioner in New York。 And she gets credit for these。
pedestrian only zones in New York。 She really transformed the landscape in New。
York in a way that no one would have thought possible cutting through red tape。
largely on the heels of her agency。 She did other great things but she was not。
willing to take anything as fixed。 Most folks think she was the most。
influential Transportation Commissioner since Moses and we mean Robert Moses， there。
And if you look at our data， which we will in a minute， this always shows up。
Every group we've ever tested shows up as the most important strategy empirically。
The second of the new tools is intentionality。 Intentionality is acting， with a goal in mind。
Relentless pursuit of goals， eschewing distractions and， secondary rewards。
This is connected to Jeff Efert talks about it as focus。 There's。
obviously decades of research on goals。 We've seen examples in this course from。
Robert Moses and Sergio de Melo， which I'll elaborate on again in a minute。 The。
survey questions we use to assess this include things like is careful to。
understand the steps necessary to achieve goals。 Is resilient in the pursuit of。
goals。 And again Sergio de Melo illustrated this for us。 We thought we saw。
Sergio in the very first lecture in this course。 He is the late UN ambassador and。
when he died he was thought of as probably the top diplomat in the world。
We studied him while he was running essentially East Timor。 And some of the。
things we read about him in the book by Samantha Power about him is that he was。
"ruthlessly pragmatic" that with experience in his career he learned to， trade lesser evils。
This all means that he was making trade-offs。 He was。
sacrificing lesser goals in pursuit of his bigger goals。 One way to think about it。
is that if you're not sacrificing some of your preferences and some of your。
lesser goals you're probably not working with enough intentionality towards your。
biggest goals。 Finally， situational awareness。 Attending to situational， power。
uncertainty and importance and especially how these factors change， over time。
This concept comes to us from the military。 Those of you who have been， in the military。
the US military at least know how often you're trained and drilled， in SA situation awareness。 SA。
The aviation industry has picked it up and from， their other industries are adding it to their to their training repertoire。
It's， connected also to psychological research on things like change blindness and。
change detection。 We talked about it some in the Cuban Missile Crisis that we。
talked about early in the course。 Some of the survey questions here are。
recognizing when circumstances change， recognizing when uncertainty is high。
seeing opportunities that others miss。 One of our favorite examples comes from。
President Abraham Lincoln， President of the United States in 1861 to 1865。 We can。
use Lincoln to illustrate any of these leverage inventory concepts。 He was one。
of these guys who was extraordinarily adept at the full range。 He played the。
full range but he gives us a nice illustration of situational awareness。
especially around knowing when to wait and knowing when to double down。 So when。
he was about to give the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves in the。
United States it was a it was there was a big debate even in the north the part of。
the country he was from and among Republicans even though they were。
fighting a war against the south。 Everyone wasn't on board about the， Emancipation Proclamation。
There was great debate there。 He himself debated it。
for a long time and eventually came to believe that it was time to issue this。
proclamation free the slaves。 It was the summer of 1862。 They were one year into。
the Civil War and he came to his cabinet and said it's time to do this。 I've， debated it。
What do you guys think？ And they all went around and gave their， reactions。
It has said that he had thought of all of them except for one。
His Secretary of State Seward said I like the idea but it's a bad it's a， bad moment to do it。
Bad timing。 We are presently losing the war。 If we do this。
now it will look like the desperate act of a of a weak government。 He encouraged。
Lincoln to set it aside until the war had turned and then it would be received， better。
Lincoln saw the wisdom of the suggestion and did in fact put it in his。
death drawer and sat on it for six months or so and then on the heels of。
Antietam which was the bloodiest day in American history。 The north beat the。
south in that battle and turned the tide of the war。 He gave the Emancipation。
proclamation freeing the slaves。 The remarkable thing to me about the story is。
that here's Lincoln on the eve of making one of the grandest gestures a。
government has ever made and he decided the timing wasn't right。 He。
realized that what mattered was the effectiveness of this thing。 It didn't。
matter how morally right he was in order to be effective。 Timing mattered。 The。
situation mattered and he was willing to postpone this big gesture。 Grand， gestures。
Big a gesture as a president has ever made。 He postponed it in in order。
to wait for the right situation。 So those are our 12 tactics。 That's what we。
assessed you on in the leverage inventory and in the next lecture we'll go into。
some detail into what the data look like。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
