Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Study shows how to change people's minds in business


Stop Trying to Change People's Minds

Trying to make your team come around to your way of thinking is often a waste of time. Here's what you can do instead.
Mind Control
Flickr
 
148
Share
Most people hate to be told what to do. We're not generally keen on being told we're wrong, either.
Both tendencies, taken together, can add up to usually reasonable folks digging in their heels to hold on to positions that are pretty clearly wrong-headed, just to avoid giving in to the hectoring of others—you've undoubtedly experienced the phenomenon in your own life.
Still, as a business owner, you regularly need to convince skeptical colleagues of your ideas or approach and bring around clients or vendors to your way of seeing things. How can you get people to alter their thinking without putting them on the defensive? Get them to persuade themselves, suggests a fascinating recent post on PsyBlog.
The post cites research that asked people both to sit and passively listen to a persuasive speech arguing for a particular point of view and to give a speech themselves defending a position. The scientists compared how persuaded those that sat and listened were to those who were asked to actively argue for a position they initially didn't believe in.
PsyBlog summarizes the results: "What emerged was that, on average, people were more convinced by the talk when they gave it themselves than when they merely heard it passively. This suggests that we really are persuaded more strongly when we make the argument ourselves, even if it isn't in line with our own viewpoint." Research into smokers confirms these findings, showing that smokers are more persuaded to quit when asked to deliver an anti-smoking message than when they are subjected to a similar message delivered by others.
So how can entrepreneurs put this insight to use? PsyBlog offers an explanation of the phenomenon, as well as a suggestion:
The explanation seems to be that we are very good at convincing ourselves because we know just what sorts of arguments will sway us. So if you want someone to persuade themselves, you can try asking them to put aside their own attitude for a moment and try getting them to generate their own arguments for the point you want to make.
Whatever the cover story, as long as the person is encouraged to generate their own arguments, it has a chance of changing their mind.
Could exercises that ask your team to generate arguments for the course of action you want to take be a better use of your time than simply lecturing them on your point of view?

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Daily trick to kill stress and improve health


Daily Trick to Kill Stress, Improve Health

Forget two weeks on a tropical island: Try to just shut off this one program on your computer, for a remarkable change of heart rate and stress hormones.
 
111
Share
Pretty much all of us would love to pack our bags and jet off to beach or a cabin somewhere for a couple of weeks this summer to shut out the pressures of owning a business. If that's not on the cards for scheduling or budgetary reasons, don't despair. A new study says you can make a measurable dent in your stress levels with a much less time-consuming and costly intervention.
What is it? Simply switching off your access to email. Researchers from the University of California-Irvine and the U.S. Army recently wired up suburban office workers to gadgets that monitored both how often they switched between windows on their computers and their heart rates. For part of the study the workers were monitored as they went about their routines, checking and sending email normally. Then the researchers asked the participants to take an "email vacation" and quit their inboxes.
The results didn't simply show up in the company's server logs as a decline in the number of emails sent. They were also clearly visible in the bodies of the study participants. When given constant access to email the workers exhibited a steady, high heart rate as if they were always on alert. Such elevated heart rates have been linked tohigher levels of the hormone cortisol and a number of health problems. When the participants quit using email, their heart rates returned to a more natural and variable pattern, going up when confronted with something stressful but returning to a more relaxed pace when the situation had passed. They also switched windows much less—from 37 times per hour with email to 18 times without.
After five days off email the research team asked the participants for their subjective feelings following their break from their inboxes. The workers reported feeling more in control and more productive, though also a bit more isolated. "Participants loved being without email, especially if their manager said it was OK. In general, they were much happier to interact in person," said Gloria Mack, the UCI informatics professor who led the study.
With earlier research showing that 70 percent of emails to knowledge workers are attended to within a mere six seconds or their arrival, it's no surprise that getting off the email treadmill has such a marked impact on workers' state of mind and physical well being. So while getting rid of email entirely may be unfeasible for most entrepreneurs, this research suggests an occasional break may be achievable and have significant benefits. "Most discovered just how unnecessary email was," Mack told theLos Angeles Times of the participants in her study, though she conceded that sometimes email is essential.
So if you can't manage a week away anytime soon, could you at least consider giving yourself a day off email now and again?

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

3 Things that could kill facebook


3 Things That Could Kill Facebook

Facebook's success as a public company is anything but guaranteed.
Associated Press
 
Let the Facebook road show—and the dissection of its future as a public company—begin.
In The Age of the Platform, I write extensively about how platforms by themselves guarantee nothing. Think about how companies like AOL, MySpace, and Yahoo! have fallen from grace in recent years. And I'm hardly the only one who feels this way. Eric Jackson on Forbes makes the case that Google and Facebook might suffer similar fates within five years. Is it possible? Sure. Though I suspect it won't happen, primarily because these companies understand Clayton's Christensen's innovator's dilemma: in a nutshell, the very things that make a company successful ultimately cause its demise.
Even so, let's examine Facebook and the forces that could derail this 900-million-member social network. At a high level, there are three: Facebook itself, the competition, and the unknown.

What Facebook Does

Facebook 2.0 has already launched. Its access to capital means that it can buy patents and photo-sharing apps for more than $1.5 billion in less than a month. Bigger deals come with greater rewards, but also with greater risks. Instagram represents a significant amount of the company's cash stash and, at a minimum, may impede its ability to do other deals.
Next, while going public means that it will have greater funds at Facebook's disposal, there's a flip side to that coin as well. Many of the company's financial practices will be revealed. Note that "many" isn't the same as "all." Amazon.com has proven that no company has to break out earnings by every product, service, or category.
The IPO invites the following questions:
  • What if fickle investors don't like what Facebook is doing–or how the company is doing it?
  • What if governments start investigations its into privacy and security practices?
  • What if Facebook drops the ball and a massive security or privacy breach ensues?
  • What if more and more users just don't like how their data is being used?
And let's not forget potential overreaching (read: organ donation) and whether the company can monetize for mobile devices.

What Its Competition Does

No company exists in a bubble or vacuum—and that's never been more true than today. Books like The Halo Effect: ... and the Eight Other Business Delusions That Deceive Managers demonstrate the danger when companies only look inward.
More than ever, flawless strategy and execution (if there were such things) by themselves guarantee nothing. Perhaps Amazon, Apple, Twitter, Google, or another heavyweight will crush Facebook. Maybe a new social network, one not based upon personal connections, will supplant Facebook as the 800-lb. gorilla. The Experience Project is one of a slew of networks organized around a fundamentally different concept.
And I could write a book about the impacts of luck and timing on the success of any company.

The Unknown

As I write this, I have no doubt that somewhere around the globe someone is working on an idea that will cause major disruption. Never has it been easier and less expensive to start a company. The barriers to entry have all but evaporated and, given how quickly things change these days, I can certainly see a day in which Facebook is no longer "hip."
Will Facebook be relevant in five years? Probably, but the company isn't aiming to be just relevant. It wants to be dominant and, on that, I'm much less certain

Sunday, May 6, 2012

How to close the biggest deal


How to Close the Biggest Deals

There are seven key factors that change in scale in a "big deal." Here's how to identify them--and then take the necessary steps to land it.
Mount Everest 3
Flickr/lampertron
 
You don't climb the biggest hill in your neighborhood the same way you would tackle Mount Everest. Changes in scale require a big shift in tactics.
Let's start with the seven things that make your big sale different than your average size sale:
  1. Size: Obvious, sure, but worth the mention. Adding a couple of zeros to the deal can change more than just the sweatiness of your palms.
  2. Complexity: The bigger the deal, the more moving parts. Moving from 100 loaves to 100,000 loaves may not change the recipe–but it increases the logistical complexity of getting the bread to the market.
  3. Decision-makers: Big sales choices are made by more senior people with different agendas (and budgets) than the front-line user. And bigger sales always mean more people involved in the decision.
  4. Reasons: Customers buy a car for different reasons than they would use to buy a fleet. Personal preference is a much smaller part of the decision.
  5. Process: Small sales often have a three-step process: offer, consider, decide. Larger purchases often require structured evaluation processes.
  6. Resources: To support those various processes and multiple people involved, large sales take greater resources–more travel, more people, and so on.
  7. Cycles: Big sales take longer.
The list can be so daunting that I know many people who shy away from big sales completely.
But bigger sales bring faster growth. So if you are ready for the growth, you should seek out those bigger deals.
What do you have to do to win the big sale?
  • Different decision makers mean different hunters. To connect with senior buyers, you need to bring more firepower to the conversation–more senior people from your own company, more customer references, and definitely a team of your own subject matter experts.
  • Different reasons mean different language: You need to talk "fleet" language, not "car" language. Understand the issues of each of the members of the buying group.
  • Different process means different strategy: If transactional sales are mostly about trust and relationship, then what are the drivers of process-based sales? At each step, make sure you have the necessary tools to win.
  • Different resources mean better coordination. Your subject matter experts are engaged in the delivery of your other promises to current clients. Your use of those resources must be efficient, judicious and orchestrated.
  • Different cycles means patience and progress tracking: Large sales often go through several stages. These may involve drawings, prototypes, cost justifications, final proposals and negotiations. If you are used to a fast cycle, you will need to learn to measure wins in increments of progress, not just final outcomes.
I'll be candid: Big sales are awesome. Few things bring the satisfaction and sense of accomplishment as landing a whopper deal.
Just make certain that you understand the differences between your typical sales and the big ones, so that you scale your approach and expectations accordingly

Friday, May 4, 2012

We are in a tech bubble people, but its different this time


Tech Bubble? Why It’s Different This Time

There's no question that we're in a start-up boom. But the power dynamics look very different this time around.
Keyboard Tech Bubble
Flickr/Rico-San
 
Are we currently in a tech start-up bubble?
It's a fascinating question and, to be sure, opinions among learned folks run the gamut. Those in the affirmative look at Facebook's billion-dollar acquisition of Instagram as Exhibit A. That much money for a company with zero revenue, much less profits? Call itdot-com 2.0. This evokes images of pets.com and other ill-fated startups.
Naysayers point to the fact that technology costs have dropped by several orders of magnitude, thus dramatically reducing the amount of capital required by startups. Count Marc Andreessen among those who believe that all of this bubble talk is overblown. And there are those who fall somewhere in the middle.
Who knows the definitive answer to the lofty and unprovable bubble question? Certainly not me. But—as someone who lived through the Internet boom of the late 1990s, I can tell you that something is fundamentally different this time: the proliferation of viable funding platforms. These platforms can effectively tap the resources of John and Jane Q. Public. In other words, no longer do start-ups have to rely upon angel investors and venture capital firms to raise money. Funding has been democratized.

Funding Platforms

While Kickstarter is currently the 800-lb. gorilla, other funding platforms have broken through. This begs the question: Do any of these new sites actually work? The answer is a resounding yes, especially in light of Kickstarter's massively successful Pebble Watch. I know something about Kickstarter, having successfully funded my fourth book, The Age of the Platformon it. (I didn't raise anywhere near $8 million, though. Dare to dream, right?)

Examining the Pebble Watch

What if a VC firm gave Pebble founder Eric Migicovsky $8 million for a crazy idea of a smart watch? Kind of bubbly, right? Well, consider that the nearly 53,000 backers of his project (as of this writing) haven't given Pebble anything. Rather, they've bought a product–before it's actually been produced. (And, in case you're wondering, Migicovsky told Bloomberg West that he has since received more than a few calls from VC firms since his project went viral, many of whom probably wouldn't have given him the time of day three months ago.)
What's more, sites like Kickstarter are becoming metaplatforms: platforms that spawn other platforms. Case in point: Pebble recently announced that Runkeeper will be the first app for its watch.
In theory at least, the JOBS Act makes it easier for new businesses to start and flourish. One could argue that nascent funding platforms may produce companies without legitimate business models and revenue streams. Is there such a thing as the wisdom of the crowd? Perhaps.
Funding platforms may add to—or detract from—a potential bubble. We just don't know yet. We do know, however, that the game has changed, and possibly forever. Angel investors and VCs are no longer the only gatekeepers, the arbiters of which companies receive funds and which do not. Through emerging platforms, the floodgates have been opened.

Read more: